Fabrication and Distortion
We referred, in the chapter (At the Threshold), to the black market that Mo’awiya had established and had spent too much of the Muslims’ monies just to make it succeed, with no feeling of any responsibility nor fearing the bad end of his bad deeds; therefore fabricating the prophetic traditions and distortion the Quranic verses increased in this market.
The false goods accumulated in this market until a mark of disgrace was put on the forehead of time and the pages of history were blackened with dark letters. The truth was distorted and the face of history was deformed.
Abu Talib, the father of Imam Ali, received his share of that terrible injustice made in this market.
Many lies were fabricated against him to perish his faithfulness, to put out his bright belief and to do with his jihad he had done for the sake of Islam. In fact, the purpose of these lies was to avenge on him because it was he, who prevented from choking the mission in its cradle when his nephew had come with it; therefore many lies and untrue traditions were fabricated and many Quranic verses were distorted just to defame him and to remove his virtues.
We have, in this chapter, to rove through the accusations woven against Abu Talib and the ill wills that fabricated against him what he was free from.
We have to examine these fabrications and distortions and to criticize them with full analysis in order to clarify the truth.
The First Verse
Allah says:
And of them is he who hearkens to you, and We have cast veils over their hearts lest they understand it and a heaviness into their ears; and even if they see every sign they will not believe in it; so much so that when they come to you they only dispute with you; those who disbelieve say: This is naught but the stories of the ancients.¤ And they prohibit (others) from it and go far away from it, and they only bring destruction upon their own souls while they do not perceive.¤ And could you see when they are made to stand before the fire, then they shall say: Would that we were sent back, and we would not reject the communications of our Lord and we would be of the believers. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 6:25-27)
These three verses talked about the doings of some of the polytheists, who listened to the Prophet (S) when reciting the verses of the holy Quran revealed to him but they understood nothing. Allah had put veils over their hearts not to perceive and heaviness into the ears not to hear. They did not believe in the verses they narrated from the Prophet (S). They disputed with the Prophet (S) about these verses and said stubbornly that these verses were not but myths of the ancient people.
The three verses were common and connected in talking about the same subject; the doings of some of the polytheists, but the fabricators came and distorted the middle verse from among the three.
At-Tabari and others mentioned a tradition narrated by Sufyan ath-Thawri from Habeeb bin Abu Thabit from someone, who heard ibn Abbas saying that this verse was revealed to the Prophet (S) concerning Abu Talib; he prohibited from harming the Prophet (S) but he refused to be a Muslim.
We put our notes about this tradition as the following:
a. We found among the series of the narrators of this tradition Sufyan ath-Thawri. He concealed the defects of the traditions of the unreliable narrators, wrote down traditions from the liars
and narrated traditions from the unreliable narrators.
Ibn Mubarak said, “Sufyan narrated a tradition. I came and found that he was changing something of it. When he saw me, he felt shy and said: fiWe narrate it from you.”
Ibn Mo’een said: “The mursal
traditions of Sufyan are like the wind.”
It was mention in Tathkiratul Huffadh from ath-Thahabi that al-Faryani had said: “I heard Sufyan saying: If we wanted to tell you of the traditions as we had heard, we wouldn’t tell you even of one tradition.”
Sufyan narrated traditions from as-Salt bin Dinar al-Azdi. As-Salt was one of those, who criticized and defamed Imam Ali (as) and the scholars of jarh and ta’deel
criticized him. In spite of that, Sufyan narrated traditions from him but he did not mention his name. He said, when narrating from him, Abu Shu’ayb told us… until Shu’ba said: “If Sufyan narrates a tradition from someone that you don’t know, don’t accept from him because he narrates traditions from persons like Abu Shu’ayb the mad.”
There were some people, who considered Sufyan as one of the Shia.
We found ourselves between two contradictories; ascribing Sufyan to the Shia and the truthfulness of this tradition of him!
They were two contradictories that would never meet; Shiism and considering Abu Talib as unbeliever where Ahlul Bayt (S) and all the Shia agreed upon the faithfulness of Abu Talib. So did every fair prudent person. Objecting this consensus meant being away from Shiism. If it was proved that Sufyan was one of the Shia, then he would be free from narrating this tradition.
Imam al-Ameen talked about Sufyan in his book A'yan ash-Shia
and mentioned both jarh and ta’deel about him and said: “… but I incline towards jarh because he showed many objections against the imam of Shiism, Ja’far bin Muhammad as-Sadiq (S).”
There was a saying about his Shiism and then he deviated from that
and another said that he was a Zaydi.
b. The series of the narrators was cut between Habeeb and ibn Abbas. There was unknown narrator without mentioning any name. This uncovered the hidden secret and answered the riddle!
c. Al-Ameeni said, “This tradition was narrated by Habeeb only without being narrated by anyone else. Ibn Habban and ibn Khuzayma said that he was a falsifier. Al-Aqeeli said; Ibn Oun slandered him. He narrated some traditions from Ata’ that no one paid attention to them.
Al-Qattan said, He narrated some traditions from Ata’ that no one paid attention to them and they were not memorized.
Al-Aajuri said that Abu Dawood had said, there is no true tradition narrated by Habeeb from Aasim bin Dhamra.
Ibn Ja’far an-Nakhkhas said: He (Habeeb) often said: If a man told me of a tradition narrated by you and then I narrated it, I would be truthful.”
Do you see the indifference of this man towards his narrations and his mockery in his traditions?
d. Al-Qurtubi said, “The meaning of the Quranic verse was general and it concerned all the unbelievers, who kept away from Muhammad (S) and prevented people from following him. So was said by ibn Abbas and al-Hasan.”
Al-Ameeni quoted from at-Tabari, ibnul Munthir, ibn Abu Hatim and ibn Mardwayh a tradition narrated by Ali bin Abu Talha and al-Oufi that ibn Abbas thought that this verse concerned the polytheists, who prohibited people from believing in Muhammad (S) and who kept away from him.
Al-Ameeni mentioned another tradition narrated in many ways and the all thought that the verse meant, they prevented people from the Quran and from the Prophet (S) and they kept away from the Prophet (S).
e. No one interpreted the verse like Sufyan ath-Thawri did, especially after mentioning the tradition of ibn Abbas that was narrated in many ways. Ibn Abbas contradicted Sufyan in interpreting this verse and in his thought about his uncle Abu Talib.
We have mentioned his clear thought about his uncle in the previous chapter.
f. The unity of the meaning between the three Quranic verses prevents any one from distorting the meaning of the second verse where it is connected with the previous and the following one.
g. Distorting the meaning of the middle verse especially conflicts with its clear meaning.
The meaning of the verse, as it was explained by all the interpreters, was: they prohibited from listening to the Quran and to the Prophet (S) and they kept away from the Prophet (S) …whereas the distorters distorted the meaning of (prohibition) and interpreted it as supporting the Prophet (S) and prohibiting people from harming him!
How could we get such a meaning out of this verse?
h. This interpretation, in which they said that the verse concerned Abu Talib alone because he prevented the unbelievers from harming the Prophet (S) and so they kept away from believing in him, was falser than the previous interpretation.
The pronoun in the verse was a plural pronoun (…they prohibit… they…). If it concerned Abu Talib alone, the pronoun would be a singular pronoun.
Then how could the meaning of (and go far away from it) refer to Abu Talib, who had never separated from the Prophet (S) for a moment? When did Abu Talib keep away from the Prophet (S)?
Was that when he protected and supported the Prophet (S)? Was that when he propagandized for the mission? Was that when he defended the Prophet (S) and his followers?
How could Abu Talib do all that if he was away from the Prophet (S)?
i. It would be better to quote the sayings of some interpreters about this subject. We quoted these sayings from al-Ameeni’s book Al-Ghadeer because some of the reference books were not easily to be at hand.
Ar-Razi mentioned in his Tafseer
two sayings; the verse was revealed to talk about the polytheists, who prohibited people from believing in the Prophet (S), and the other saying; that the verse concerned Abu Talib especially and he said: “The first saying is more accepted for two reasons;
The first: all the previous verses criticized the unbelievers and even the saying (And they prohibit (others) from it) must concern them because if we interpret this saying to concern Abu Talib, who prohibited from harming the Prophet (S), there will be a confusion in the meaning of the verses.
The second: After that, Allah said: (and they only bring destruction upon their own souls). It refers to the very previous meaning and it is not suitable that the saying (And they prohibit (others) from it) means prohibiting from harming the Prophet (S) because this is a good meaning and does not lead to destruction.
If it is said that the saying (and they only bring destruction upon their own souls) concerns the saying (and go far away from it) and not (And they prohibit (others) from it) because it means that (they kept away from him by refusing his religion) and this is dispraise so your justification is not right.
We say: the meaning of the saying (and they only bring destruction upon their own souls) concerns all what mentioned previously because it is like saying that someone keeps away from a certain thing and disaffects the others from it and so he will harm himself. Harm, here, doesn’t concern only one thing rather than the other.”
Ibn Katheer in his Tafseer
mentioned the first saying narrated by ibnul Hanafiyya, Qatada, Mujahid, ad-Dhahhak and others and said: “This saying is more acceptable -Allah is the most aware- and it is preferred by ibn Jareer.”
An-Nasfiy, in his Tafseer printed on the margins of al-Khazin’s Tafseer,
mentioned the first saying and then said: “It was said that it concerned Abu Talib but the first saying is more acceptable.”
Az-Zamakhshari in his Kashshaf,
ash-Shawkani in his Tafseer
and others mentioned the first saying and mentioned the second saying preceded by (it was said). Al-Aaloosi detailed the first saying then he mentioned the second and said: “The imam denied it.” Then he mentioned the conclusion of ar-Razi.
Some people generalized the verse to concern all the Prophet’s uncles: “…they were ten (uncles). They were the most of people in being with him openly and the most of people in being against him secretly.”
You knew well that among the Prophet’s uncles were Hamza; the master of the martyrs and al-Abbas!
You could decide after that whether these two; Hamza and al-Abbas, would be in Hell and would be concerned by this verse or not!
What would the perplexed and the infatuated ones interpret more?
As for me, I would not be surprised to hear that. We have mentioned some examples in the first chapter of this book (At the Threshold).
One of them was a tradition narrated by Orwa saying that al-Abbas and Imam Ali would be among the people of Hell!
However Hamza wouldn’t be better than Imam Ali in virtues so they would say about him whatever they liked!
j. Hence the hidden secret was uncovered and the mean purposes behind distorting the meaning of the Quranic verse from being about the unbelievers to concern the faithful man Abu Talib became clear according to the weak series of the narrators, the unity of the meaning of the verses and the opinions of the interpreters.
Before all, the doings and the sayings of Abu Talib and the witnesses of the Prophet (S) and his progeny had confirmed the faithfulness of this man.
All that imposed upon us to brush that distorted interpretation aside and not to pay any attention to the evil wills.
The Second and the Third Verses
1. It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe that they should ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even though they should be near relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are inmates of the flaming fire. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 9:113)
2. Surely you cannot guide whom you love, but Allah guides whom He pleases, and He knows best the followers of the right way. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 28:56)
We would like first to quote the fabricated traditions that distorted the meaning of these verses then to discuss the source of the traditions and to uncover the reality of the narrator’s one after the other.
1. Iss~haq bin Ibraheem said that Abdur Razaq told him from Mu’ammar from az-Zuhri from Sa’eed bin al-Mussayyab that his father had said: “When Abu Talib was dying, the Prophet (S) came to him while Abu Jahl and Abdullah bin Abu Umayya were sitting near him. The Prophet (S) said to Abu Talib, “O uncle! Say there is no god but Allah so that I will intercede with Allah for you by it!”
Abu Jahl and Abdullah bin Abu Umayya said: “O Abu Talib! Do you deny the religion of Abdul Muttalib?”
The Prophet (S) said, “I will pray Allah to forgive you as long as I am not forbidden from it.”
Then this verse was revealed to the Prophet (S):
It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe that they should ask forgiveness for the polytheists… (Shakir 9:113)”
2. From Abul Yaman, from Shu’ayb, from az-Zuhri, from Sa’eed bin al-Mussayab from his father: “When Abu Talib was dying, the Prophet (S) came to him. He found Abu Jahl and Abdullah bin Abu Umayya bin al-Mugheera sitting near him. The Prophet (S) said, “O uncle! Say there is no god but Allah so that I will intercede with Allah for you by this word.”
Abu Jahl and Abdullah bin Abu Umayya said (to Abu Talib): “Do you deny the religion of Abdul Muttalib?”
The Prophet (S) kept on asking his uncle to say that and those two men repeated their saying until Abu Talib said, and it was the last word he had said before his death: “On the religion of Abdul Muttalib” and he refused to say that there was no god but Allah.
The Prophet (S) said, “By Allah! I will pray Allah to forgive you as long as I am not forbidden from it.”
Then Allah revealed to the Prophet (S):
It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe that they should ask forgiveness for the polytheists…. (Shakir 9:113)
Also Allah revealed to the Prophet (S) about Abu Talib:
Surely you cannot guide whom you love, but Allah guides whom He pleases and He knows best the followers of the right way. (Shakir 28:56)”
3. From Harmala bin Yahya at-Tajeebi, from Abdullah bin Wahab, from Younus, from ibn Shihab, from Sa’eed bin al-Mussayab, from his father: “When Abu Talib was dying, the Prophet (S) came to him… etc.”
4. From Muhammad bin Abbad and ibn Abu Omar, from Marwan, from Yazeed bin Kayssan, from Abu Hazim, from Abu Hurayra: “The Prophet (S) said to his uncle when he was dying: “Say: there is no god but Allah so that I witness to you with it in the Day of Resurrection.” He refused. Then Allah revealed:
Surely you cannot guide whom you love, but Allah guides whom He pleases, and He knows best the followers of the right way. (Shakir 28:56)
5. From Muhammad bin Hatim bin Maymoon, from Yahya bin Sa’eed, from Yazeed bin Kayssan, from Abu Hazim al-Ashja’iy, from Abu Hurayra: “The Prophet (S) said to his uncle: “Say: there is no god but Allah so that I witness to you with it in the Day of Resurrection.” Abu Talib said: “I fear that Quraysh may blame me. They may say that he is forced by fearing death to say that, otherwise I will delight your eyes with it.” Then Allah revealed:
Surely you cannot guide whom you love, but Allah guides whom He pleases, and He knows best the followers of the right way. (Shakir 28:56)
The Narrators of the First Three Traditions
We started with the narrators of the first three traditions for some reasons:
1. Among the narrators of the first traditions there was Iss~haq bin Ibraheem, whose name was incomplete. There were many persons having this name. We did not know which one he was. Was he Iss~haq bin Ibraheem, the weak (unreliable)? Or whose sheikh was unregarded? Or who was not trusty? Or whom ath-Thahabi didn’t know and who was considered as unreliable by ad-Darqutni? Or who was considered as liar by ibn Adiy and al-Azdi because of fabricating traditions? Or about whom al-Hakim and ad-Darqutni said: he was not reliable? Or about whom an-Nassa’iy said that he was not trusty, Abu Dawood said that he was nothing and was considered as liar by the speaker of Hims,
Muhammad bin Ouf at-Ta’iy? Or who narrated the denied traditions? Or who was left without paying any attention to his traditions?
But he might be Iss~haq bin Ibraheem ad-Dubri, the companion of Abdur Razaq about whom ath-Thahabi said: “He was not a man of traditions…” until he said: “but Abdur Razaq narrated from him denied traditions. Then they were treated with hesitation; were they narrated by him alone or they were known traditions narrated by Abdur Razaq alone?”
But the author of Sheikhul Abtah said when talking about this tradition that he was Iss~haq bin Ibraheem bin Rahwayh.
Ath-Thahabi said about this one: “Abu Obeid al-Aajuri said: I heard Abu Dawood saying: Iss~haq bin Rahwayh became different (dotard) five months before his death. I heard from him some traditions at those days but I brushed them aside” until he said, “A tradition was mentioned to our sheikh Abul Hajjaj. He said, It was said that Iss~haq doted at the last days of his life.” Then he mentioned, as he thought, some of Iss~haq’s denied traditions.
We thought that he was the companion of Abdur Razaq because he related the tradition to Abdur Razaq.
Then who was this Abdur Razaq?
Was he Abdur Razaq bin Omar ath-Thaqafi, about whom it was said that he was weak, unreliable and his traditions were denied and about whom ad-Darqutni said that he was weak and his book was lost and Abu Mussahhar said from az-Zuhri that his book was lost?
But he might be that one, about whom ath-Thahabi had said in his tradition from Iss~haq bin Ibraheem, which we mentioned above: “… but he narrated from Abdur Razaq denied traditions… etc.”
He had narrated from Ma’mar bin Rashid ten thousand traditions!
Then we found among the narrators the name of Ma’mar. He was not but a liar, unknown, and a narrator of denied traditions.
We thought that this Ma’mar was Ma’mar bin Rashid.
Ath-Thahabi said about him: “He had famous illusions. Abu Hatim said. He didn’t narrate traditions in Basra because he had many mistakes.”
Abdur Razaq, who was one of the series of narrators of this tradition, said that he had written down from Ma’mar ten thousand traditions.
Did you see the great number of traditions! And did you see this naughty series of narrators? There was nothing except falseness, fabrication, and split ties.
2. Also we found in the series of narrators of the second tradition incomplete and unknown names.
Who was Abul Yaman?
We didn’t find save one name that narrated a mursal tradition (a tradition narrated without-or with incomplete or unknown-series of narrators).
The second name was Shu’ayb. We found many persons having this name and no one of them was but a fabricator, a liar, weak, a narrator of denied traditions, unknown… etc.
3. Then the series of the two traditions met with az-Zuhri. Would az-Zuhri’s tradition be trusted whereas he himself had narrated that fabricated tradition, which we mentioned in the first chapter (At the Hreshold), saying that Imam Ali and his uncle al-Abbas would be among the people of Hell and would die on a religion other than the Prophet’s religion?
Would a tradition about Abu Talib, the father of Ali, be taken from this man, who had said such a lie, falseness and fabrication against Imam Ali so impudently?
The purpose behind that was clear and was brighter than the light of the sun. What would we expect this man to say about Abu Talib after that obscene accusation and impudent saying he had said about Imam Ali?
It was enough for az-Zuhri that Abu Talib was the father of Imam Ali to say about him worse than what he had said. After that we didn’t need to say that he was one of those, who concealed the defects of the fabricated traditions of the liars!
The two traditions about Ali and al-Abbas that narrated by him were enough for us to brush him aside!
It would be better to point out that Abdur Razaq and Ma’mar, who participated with az-Zuhri in weaving the threads of the first fabricated tradition against Abu Talib, could not keep on with him until the end. Abdur Razaq said, “Ma’mar said: “Az-Zuhri had two traditions narrated by Orwa from Aa’isha about Ali (as).” One day I asked him about them. He said, what do you do with them and their traditions? Allah is more aware of them. I suspect them when they talk about the Hashemites.”
He meant az-Zuhri and Orwa and he meant by the two traditions those traditions fabricated against Imam Ali and al-Abbas that they were among the people of Hell and they would die on a religion other than Islam.
It would be better too to mention this event about az-Zuhri:
Someone was in the mosque of Medina. He saw az-Zuhri and Orwa bin az-Zubayr sitting there. They criticized and defamed Imam Ali. Ali bin al-Husayn (Imam Sajjad) was informed of that. He came to them and said, “As for you Orwa! My father claimed against your father and it was judged for my father. But as for you Zuhri! If you were in Mecca, I would show you the house of your father!”
4. Among the series of the narrators of the third tradition we found these names:
a. Harmala bin Yahya at-Tajeebi or at-Taheebi, whose odd traditions were narrated by him alone.
Abu Hatim said about him that no one depended about his traditions. Abdullah bin Muhammad al- Farhathan considered him as weak as ibn Adiy said it.
It was said that Harmala had one thousand traditions. All of them were narrated from ibn Wahab. This tradition, we are talking about, was narrated by Harmala from ibn Wahab. He narrated all ibn Wahab’s traditions except two.
b. We were confused when we read about what had been said about Abdullah bin Wahab, the second narrator of the series of this false tradition. It was said that he had compiled one hundred and twenty thousand traditions and that all his traditions were with Harmala except two traditions.
Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal was asked by someone about bin Wahab: “Didn’t he take traditions improperly?” He answered: “Yes, he did.”
That he narrated one hundred and twenty thousand traditions alone… was not it enough to certify that he took traditions improperly!
What was this abundance of traditions? He just had to say: someone informed me, so told me, so narrated to me and so said to me until this great number of traditions was to be completed!
c. We did not know who was this Younus mentioned among the narrators of the tradition. There were many persons having this name, among whom were a liar, a bad memorizer, of denied traditions and even that some ones were surnamed as “the liar”.
d. And as for ibn Shihab, he was more obscure than to know anything about him!
5. Thus the series of the three traditions connected with Sa’eed bin al-Mussayyab, who had narrated the tradition from his father.
Hence we couldn’t trust in the tradition after all these defects even if it was narrated by Sa’eed bin al-Mussayyab. In fact there was a great disagreement about this Sa’eed himself in jarh and ta’deel (whether he was reliable or not).
Among those, who criticized him, was ibn Abul Hadeed. He considered him as one of those, who deviated from Imam Ali (as), and that there was something (evil) in his heart towards Imam Ali
and he was one of those, who hated and criticized Imam Ali (as).
As long as he hated Imam Ali (as), so it wouldn’t be possible in any case to trust in his traditions; then how about a tradition concerning Abu Talib, who was the father of Imam Ali. Imam Ali, according to many prophetic traditions, was the separative limit between faithfulness and polytheism; that no polytheist would love him and no faithful would hate him.
We would like to mention some events and sayings concerning this man. We begin with this dialogue between him and Omar bin Ali bin Abu Talib as it was mentioned by ibn Abul Hadeed: “…Omar bin Ali (as) scolded him severely.
Abdur Rahman bin al-Asswad narrated that Abu Dawood al-Hamadani had said: “Once I was there when Sa’eed bin al-Mussayyab asked Omar bin Ali bin Abu Talib (S) in the mosque.
He said to Omar: “O my nephew!
I don’t see that you come to the Prophet’s mosque so much like your brothers and cousins!”
Omar said, “O bin al-Mussayyab! Do I meet you whenever I com to the mosque?”
Sa’eed said, “I don’t like to make you angry. I have heard your father saying: I have a position that is much better for the family of Abdul Muttalib than all what is there on the earth.”
Omar said, “And I have heard my father saying: No word of wisdom in a polytheist’s heart remains, unless he utters it before he leaves this life.”
Sa’eed said, “O my nephew! Do you make of me a polytheist?”
Omar said, “It is what I say.” Then he left.”
Thus, this word of rightness had come out of bin al-Mussayyab’s heart before he left this world.
This severity of Omar bin Ali towards bin al-Mussayyab might show his bad situation towards Imam Ali, his deviating from him, hating him, and trying to defame him!
Here is another event showing his deviating from Ahlul Bayt (S):
One day Sa’eed bin al-Mussayyab passed by the dead body of Imam Sajjad (Ali bin al-Husayn) but he did not offer the prayer for the dead. Someone came to him and denied his behavior. He said to him, “Don’t you offer the prayer for this virtuous man of the virtuous Ahlul Bayt?
Sa’eed bin al-Mussayyab said: “Offering two rak’as
is better to me than to offer the prayer for this virtuous man!”
Then how could we trust in a tradition against Ali from a man suspected of hating him?
If we knew, that Sa’eed had said, “Whoever loved Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman and Ali, confessed that the ten persons
would be in paradise, prayed Allah to have mercy upon Mo’awiya (!!) and died on that, Allah wouldn’t punish him in the Day of Punishment”,
then we would know, after he had cleared his situation towards Mo’awiya, what value a tradition, said by this man against Abu Talib, had!
The situation of Sa’eed bin al-Mussayyab towards Mo’awiya couldn’t be denied. He narrated another false tradition about Mo’awiya that the Prophet (S) had said: “…he went towards the One, Whom no one could go except towards; and I hope that Allah won’t punish him.”
Do you know what led him to narrate this false tradition, which made him forget all the shed bloods, the extorted rights and all the disgraceful and obscene doings done by Mo’awiya?
He justified that by an untruthful saying said by Mo’awiya when he was under the wing of death and all the ways were closed before him.
Mo’awiya said “O Allah! Forgive the stumble, remit the slip, and grant your patience to the one, whom doesn’t hope save You and doesn’t trust save in You. You are the greatest forgiver and there is no escape for a sinful save towards You.”
Perhaps the saying of Mo’awiya was the cornerstone for the heresy of the Murji’ah
and hence Mo’awiya was considered to be the first of the Murjites.
Murjiism began from the unjust structure that Mo’awiya had erected upon committing sins, crimes, spreading vices, and injustice.
Surely, this unjust Mo’awiya uttered these words with his tongue only, when he was dying, without believing in them whereas his doings did not know any of these meanings. Then came after him who hoped that might Allah not punish this immoral blood-shedder and might forget-may He forgive us- what this or that might have forgotten his sins and crimes.
And it would be better to show the situation of Sa’eed bin al-Mussayyab in evaluating Mo’awiya and his likes of the mean Umayyad house.
He was asked, “Who is the most eloquent of people?”
He said, “The messenger of Allah (S)…”
It was said to him: “We don’t ask you about this!”
Then he didn’t find save Mo’awiya, his son Yazeed, Sa’eed bin al-Aass and his son Amr al-Ashdaq.
By this, we knew that he was deviate from Ali and his progeny, for what eloquence these persons had in comparison with the ocean of Imam Ali’s eloquence!
There was a great disagreement about Sa’eed and the thoughts were different about him. Some ones considered him as Shia and as one of Imam Ali bin al-Husayn’s disciples.
But this was not true for many reasons that we didn’t want to waste time in detailing. His traditions against Ahlul Bayt and their father Abu Talib besides the saying of Imam Sajjad himself, of whom Sa’eed was considered as disciple, was sufficient evidence for us to show his deviation.
If it were, proved that he was a Shia, this tradition would be not his.
Some people, as al-Mufeed, considered him as one of those, who hated Ahlul Bayt.
And some, as Malik, considered him as one of the Kharijites.
Anyhow if ta’deel was preferred to jarh about this man, and this what we liked, he would not have narrated then this tradition definitely.
If Sa’eed was reliable, then definitely it would be the doubtful series of the narrators that fabricated the tradition and ascribed it to Sa’eed.
As for the father of Sa’eed, al-Mussayyab bin Hazan, from whom his son Sa’eed had inherited fiseverity and impoliteness”
and who was fione of those, who became Muslims (unwillingly) after the conquest of Mecca.”
So how could he attend the death of Abu Talib? And if he attended the death of Abu Talib, then how would his tradition be trusted whereas he wanted to increase the number of the polytheists, who would join him to justify his polytheistic situation?
This tradition couldn’t be trusted for many reasons; the incomplete and suspicious series of narrators and that it was objected by true and reliable traditions.
The Narrators of the Two Last Traditions
Here we discuss the series of narrators of each of the fourth and the fifth traditions.
1. The narrators of the fourth tradition:
a. Muhammad bin Abbad… who was he?
Not everyone having this name was more than to be unknown, unaware of traditions, blamed for his traditions, suspected or weak as ad-Darqutni said.
b. Ibn Abu Omar… who was he? No one knew who he was. Let us leave him with his obscurity.
c. Marwan…!
There were many persons having this name; among them was a liar, unknown, weak, who narrated denied traditions, who narrated from every Tom, Dick, and Harry, who was unreliable and whose traditions were not evidenced.
2. The narrators of the fifth tradition:
a. Muhammad bin Hatim bin Maymoon al-Qatee’iy, who was famous as “the fat man”; ibn Mo’een and ibn al- Medeeni said that he was a liar. Al-Fallass said about him that he was nothing.
b. Yahya bin Sa’eed; al-Bukhari and Abu Hatim said that his traditions were denied. An-Nassa’iy said that he narrated from az-Zuhri fabricated traditions. Ibn Adiy and others said that he ascribed to the reliable persons false traditions. Ibn Habban said about him that he mistook in traditions so much.
Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattan
said that he concealed when narrating traditions. Ad-Dimyati said, It was said that he concealed.
It was this Yahya bin Sa’eed, who said that he had something in his heart against Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq.
3. Then the series of narrators of the two traditions reached to Yazeed bin Kayssan from Abu Hazim from Abu Hurayra.
a. As for Yazeed bin Kayssan, ath-Thahabi mentioned two persons having this name; the first of them concerned our subject. Ath-Thahabi said about him that he narrated from Abu Hazim al-Ashja’iy and others and he narrated from Yahya al-Qattan then he said, “Abu Hatim said: No one depends upon his traditions. Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattan said: He was some how good but not reliable.”
We did not know whether ath-Thahabi meant by Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattan the one, who narrated from Yazeed and who was criticized by ath-Thahabi himself or another one!
b. We did not know the name of Abu Hazim al-Ashja’iy so we could not know anything about him.
c. As for Abu Hurayra, it was disagreed about his name, his father’s name and his lineage until it might be thought that this surname was of many persons!
This exceeding narrator of traditions was the most of the narrators in narrating traditions.
It was found in one Musnad,
which was the Musnad of Taqiy bin Mukhallad, more than five thousand and three hundred traditions narrated by this man alone.
It was him, who used to spread his dress, as he himself had said, to be filled with prophetic traditions and then to join it to his chest.
We did not know what kind of traditions that his dress was filled with!
I thought that this tradition was one of those traditions that had been attached to this dress! He narrated it as a prophetic tradition but he did not know that it was among those things that had been attached to his dress!
We did not accept this tradition for many reasons; Abu Hurayra, as we mentioned in the first chapter of this book, was one of those who had been hired by Mo’awiya to fabricate traditions against Imam Ali (as).
We quoted here what ibn Abul Hadeed had mentioned in his book that Abu Ja’far al-Iskafi had said: “Mo’awiya employed some people of the Prophet’s companions and some of the successors to fabricate traditions having bad news defaming Ali (as) and calling for turning aside from him. He assigned bribes for that in order to make it desirous for the others to do the same. Therefore, they fabricated many traditions to please him.
Among them were Abu Hurayra, Amr bin al-Aass and al-Mugheera bin Shu’ba and among the successors was Orwa bin az-Zubayr.”
You saw that Abu Hurayra was one of those, who had been hired by Mo’awiya to fabricate traditions against Imam Ali (as), and you saw that he had fabricated the tradition we mentioned in the first chapter (At the Threshold), in which he had sworn by Allah that Ali had done corruption in Medina and hence he had deserved, according to Abu Hurayra’s thought, to be cursed by Allah, the angels and all the peoples.
He followed Mo’awiya just for money. “If Mo’awiya gave him money, he would keep quiet, but if Mo’awiya did not give him money, he would speak out.”
We would like, before mentioning some sayings about Abu Hurayra, to show what he himself had narrated.
He said, “The Prophet (S) said to me: Where are you from?
I said: From Douss.
He said, I haven’t thought that there is a good man in Douss.”
He didn’t exclude anyone so Abu Hurayra would be included in this general judgment.
Here are some sayings about Abu Hurayra:
Abu Ja’far al-Iskafi said: “Abu Hurayra is considered as abnormal by our sheikhs. His traditions are unaccepted. Once Omar hit him with his stick and said to him: You exceed in narrating traditions and I think that you ascribe lies to the Prophet (S)!”
Once again, Omar said to him, “Either you stop narrating the Prophet’s traditions or I will expel you to the land of Douss.”
Douss was Abu Hurayra’s home in Yemen before he became a Muslim.
What could we say about Omar?
Was he unjust to Abu Hurayra when he hit him or when he threatened him with expelling?
I myself don’t think that the caliph was of this kind, but his conscience didn’t accept such abundance of traditions narrated by this man and ascribed to the Prophet (S) and he knew that many of them were not true! Therefore, the caliph wounded Abu Hurayra’s back with his stick and threatened him-another time-with expelling that he might refrain from fabricating traditions!
This was not the only time that the caliph Omar wounded Abu Hurayra’s back with his stick.
Once the caliph Omar sent for him, when he had appointed him as the wali of Bahrain. The caliph said to Abu Hurayra, who himself had narrated this: “O enemy of Allah and enemy of His Book! Have you stolen the wealth of the Muslims?... etc.”
He exceeded in narrating traditions during the time of the caliph Omar, who was so severe and sharp in matters of this kinds, and Abu Hurayra knew that well so he feared Omar very much; therefore we found him after the reign of Omar answering Abu Salama when he asked him: “Did you tell of such traditions during the time of Omar?”
Abu Hurayra said, “If I told at the time of Omar of what I tell you of now, he would hit me with his stick.”
He said: “I have told you of traditions that if I had told of during the time of Omar, he would have hit me with his stick.”
All that didn’t make him refrain from fabricating traditions in spite of the severity of Omar towards him, so how about him during the time of Mo’awiya, who encouraged him and gave him money just to fabricate traditions?
Ibraheem at-Tameemi said: “The scholars of Hadith didn’t depend upon Abu Hurayra’s traditions save those traditions that talked about Paradise and Hell.”
How would he, who was unreliable and untrusted in one side, be reliable and trusted in another side?
Shu’ba said, “Abu Abu Talib; the Faithful of Hurayra concealed in his traditions.”
We did not care for the comment of ath-Thahabi after that until he invented the lie of (justness of the companions overall)!
Al-A’mash said, ‘Ibraheem was correct in traditions. Whenever I heard a tradition, I came to show him the tradition. One day I came to him with traditions narrated by Abu Salih from Abu Hurayra. He said, let me aside from Abu Hurayra. They leave many of his traditions away.”
It was mentioned that Imam Ali had said: “The most in ascribing lies to the Prophet (S) among the people-or he said among the alive-is Abu Hurayra ad-Doussi.”
The saying of Imam Ali was irrefutable evidence. Then could we suspect Imam Ali and believe Abu Hurayra or we believe Imam Ali with his saying, which would do away with all what Abu Hurayra had fabricated?
Abu Yousuf said, “I said to Abu Haneefa: “If a prophetic tradition comes to us contradicting our continued companion’s analogy, what will we do with it?” He said, “If it is narrated by trusty narrators, we will do according to it and leave out our own thought.” The conversation Haneefa until were Abu trusty except said: some “All of ones…” the He mentioned some names, among which the name of Abu Hurayra was.”
It was mentioned that when Abu Hurayra came to Kuffa with Mo’awiya, he used to sit at the gate of Kinda in the evenings and people sat around him. One day a young man from Kuffa -it was said he was al-Asbagh bin Nabata
- came and said to Abu Hurayra: “O Abu Hurayra, I ask you by Allah! Have you heard the Prophet (S) saying to Ali bin Abu Talib: “O Allah! Be a supporter of whoever supports him and an enemy of whoever opposes him?”
He said, “By Allah! Yes, I have.”
The young man said, “Then witness by Allah that you have supported his (Ali’s) enemies and opposed his supporters.” Then he left.”
One day Abul Asbagh bin Nabata at-Tameemi came with a book from Imam Ali (as) to Mo’awiya, who was surrounded by the evil people like Amr bin al-Aass, Thul Kila’, Hawshab, ibn Aamir, al-Waleed bin Aqaba, Shurahbeel, Abu Hurayra, Abud Darda’ and others.
The argument began between Abul Asbagh and Mo’awiya. Abul Asbagh scolded Mo’awiya, turned towards Abu Hurayra, and said to him, “You are the Prophet’s companion. I ask you by Allah, Whom there is no god but, and by His Apostle! Have you heard the Prophet (S) saying about Imam Ali on the day of Ghadeer Khum:” “Whoever I am his guardian; here is Ali to be his guardian?”
He said, “Yes by Allah, I have heard him saying that.”
Abul Asbagh said, “O Abu Hurayra! Then you have supported his enemies and opposed his supporters!”
Abu Hurayra sighed and didn’t say more than: “We are from Allah and to Him we shall return!”
Jariya bin Qudama as-Sa’di came to Medina after the terrible aggression done by Bisr bin Arta’a according to the order of the tyrant Mo’awiya. Abu Hurayra, who was leading the prayers, fled when he heard of the coming of Qudama with an army sent by Imam Ali (as).
Qudama said, “By Allah! If I caught Abu Sannoor,
I would cut his head.”
It was mentioned that Abu Hurayra praised Allah twelve thousand times every day. He said: “I praise Allah as much as my sins.”
We did not want to discuss the truthfulness or the reasonability of this raving! Did he have enough time to do this great number of praising, which equaled his plenty sins, and to narrate that great deal of traditions whereas he was so poor and hungry at the beginning of his Islamic life and then he became busy with Mo’awiya and his likes at the end of his life?
We didn’t want to comment but we wanted to refer to his saying that his praising was as much as his sins. What terrible sins they were! But giving up committing sins would be much better than asking for forgiveness!
Then came who called for committing sins in a covered way depending upon a denied fabricated tradition. Perhaps the fabricator was this man, who praised Allah as much as his sins!
The tradition was “By Him, in Whose hand my soul is! If you did not commit sins, Allah would replace you with people committing sins and then asking for forgiveness and they would be forgiven.”
Among those who defended this tradition and said that it was true was Professor Khalid Muhammad Khalid. We didn’t want to argue with him but it was just a reference.
Abu Hurayra was shallow-minded and unintellectual. He was transported by the position he got near Mo’awiya. He found that he became known after his obscurity and respected after being hit by Omar’s stick.
Sometimes he ate and played with the children.
He might tell them of some prophetic traditions to justify his situation in playing with them! It might be, especially after the commercial advertisements had increased via prophetic traditions fabricated by the merchants of Hadith such as this tradition: “Whoever ate onion of Akka as if he had visited Mecca!” and many others like this one.
Once Abu Hurayra made a speech in Medina when he was appointed as the wali by Mo’awiya
as a reward for his situation towards Imam Ali when he witnessed that Imam Ali had corrupted in Medina and hence Allah, the angels and all the people, would curse him! Allah forbids!
Abu Hurayra said in his speech, “Praise is to Allah, Who made the religion as the right path and made Abu Hurayra as imam…” He made people laugh
instead of discussing the serious affairs of the society and the umma.
Another time: he was walking in the market while he was the emir. There was a man walking in front of him. He beat the ground with his foot and said, “Clear the way! Clear the way! The emir has come.”
Ibn Abul Hadeed said after mentioning these points about Abu Hurayra’s life: “Ibn Qutayba had mentioned all that in his book Al-Ma’arif when talking about Abu Hurayra’s biography. Ibn Qutayba’s saying was evidence because he would never be accused of fabricating against Abu Hurayra.”
Abu Hurayra sided with Mo’awiya since he had known that Mo’awiya could satiate his greediness. He was as the shadow of Mo’awiya; he bent when Mo’awiya bent and stood up when Mo’awiya stood up!
One day Mo'awiya sent a letter to Imam Ali (as) with an-Nu’man bin Basheer and sent Abu Hurayra
with him asking Imam Ali to deliver the killers of Othman to Mo'awiya. Mo'awiya knew well what the situation of Imam Ali would be towards this fabricated lie but he wanted it to be the means for what he planned to do later on; therefore he chose these two men to carry his letter and to come back blaming and defaming Ali in front of the rabbles of Sham!
When the two messengers came to Ali, Abu Hurayra began his talk and then an-Nu’man talked.
Imam Ali turned away from Abu Hurayra and talked with an-Nu’man. He advised an-Nu’man about his religion without paying any attention to what Abu Hurayra had said.
An-Nu’man was satisfied to stay with Imam Ali but he concealed his deceit to come back to his friend Mo'awiya after a short time whereas Abu Hurayra was franker than his mate because the bad task he had come for invited him to go back soon to Mo'awiya to inform the people of Sham of what he had seen and heard…
And if he needed more, he would get from his five bags, which were full of traditions, as he himself had said: “I had memorized (traditions) from the Prophet (S) (that filled) five bags. I informed of (the contents of) two bags and if I informed of the third, you would stone me.”
Perhaps after he had gotten out so many traditions of his two bags, he said: “I was considered as a liar until I was thrown with dirts.”
If he opened the third bag, he would be stoned. He said: “If I told you of all what I had in my bag, you would throw me with dung.”
So how about him if he had opened the fourth and the fifth bags?
He might refer to that when he said, “I had memorized two vessels (of traditions) from the Prophet (S). I spread one of them but as for the other, if I spread it, this throat would be cut.”
He diversified in showing this point as if the traditions were something material to be put in a bag, a vessel, a dress and a garment, which he spread, while the lice were creeping on it, filled it with traditions and then joined it to his chest with all its lice!
There was no need to mention more about him in order not to waste time nor to inflate the book.
We didn’t want to show everything about Abu Hurayra because Imam Sharafuddeen al-Musawi al-Aamily had done that in his wonderful book Abu Hurayra, in which he had shown and analyzed all sides of Abu Hurayra’s life and psychology besides that he had discussed forty of Abu Hurayra’s fabricated traditions, which degraded Allah the Almighty, the prophets and the great saints.
Among those forty traditions was this tradition mentioned above.
We didn’t accept this tradition for many reasons; Abu Hurayra was not trusted, he exceeded in narrating traditions, most of his traditions were denied and before all he deviated from Imam Ali and fabricated lies that defamed him and his high position so how could we accept this very tradition narrated by one of Imam Ali’s enemies?
Would he, who said that Imam Ali had corrupted in Medina after the Prophet (S) to a degree that he deserved to be cursed, refrain from defaming Ali’s father in such a fabricated tradition?
The style of the tradition showed that as if Abu Hurayra had attended the dying of Abu Talib and had seen and heard what happened between the Prophet (S) and his uncle. But in fact when Abu Talib died, Abu Hurayra was still worshipping his idols in Yemen; his birthplace and he hadn’t met the Prophet (S) yet, then how could he narrated a tradition in a way that as if he himself had seen and heard what happened?
Abu Talib died three years before the hijra whereas Abu Hurayra came to Hijaz from Yemen and became a Muslim in the seventh year after the hijra when the Prophet (S) was in Khaybar.
This showed that he had come to Hijaz ten years after the death of Abu Talib then how could he attend the death of Abu Talib to narrate that tradition?
Yes! It was Abu Hurayra’s world of imagination and dreams, which was unlimited world, and definitely not the world of reality!
A Look at the Verse (It is not (fit) for the Prophet)
After showing the defects of the tradition and the false series of narrators, it would be better to discuss the facts that would refute the tradition.
1. The tradition mentioned by al-Bukhari showed that these two Quranic verses were revealed when Abu Talib was dying but when we referred to the two verses, we found that the first one of them had been revealed in Medina.
The all knew well that the sura of Bara’a (at-Tawba) was revealed in Medina after Islam had become so strong and prevailing.
The story of informing of the sura of Bara’a was famous for the all. It was the last thing that was revealed of the Quran.
There was a long period between the revelations of these two verses. It was about ten years.
2. It was clear that the first verse, which was a part of sura of Bara’a, was revealed in Medina after the conquest of Mecca. Therefore, there was nearly eight years between the death of Abu Talib and the revelation of this verse.
The meaning of the tradition showed the continuity of the praying of the Prophet (S) that Allah might forgive his uncle and that the Prophet (S) didn’t stop praying Allah to forgive his uncle along this period according to the Prophet’s saying (as they pretended in the tradition): “I will pray Allah to forgive you as long as I am not forbidden from it.”
Praying for forgiving Abu Talib (according to their tradition) continued by the Prophet (S) and didn’t stop except by the revelation of this verse:
It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe that they should ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even though they should be near relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are inmates of the flaming fire. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 9:113)
How was it possible for the Prophet (S) to pray Allah to forgive his uncle along the period since the death of his uncle until the revelation of this verse-as they confessed-whereas many verses were revealed to the Prophet (S) during this period forbidding the Prophet (S) and the believers from being loving and kind to the polytheists and from praying Allah to forgive them or from obeying the enemies of Allah before the revelation of this verse in a long time?
We mentioned some verses in a previous chapter but we mention some of them here too:
a. You shall not find a people who believe in Allah and the latter day befriending those who act in opposition to Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their (own) fathers, or their sons, or their brothers…. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 58:22)
This verse, which was a part of the sura of al-Mujadila, was revealed in Medina years before the revelation of Bara’a. Seven suras were revealed before the sura of Bara’a.
Also it was said that it was revealed to the Prophet (S) during the day of the battle of Badr
in the second year of hijra.
Also it was said that it was revealed during the battle of Uhud
in the third year of hijra.
Some said that this sura or some verses of it were revealed in Mecca.
According to the all sayings, the revelation of the sura of al-Mujadila was, no doubt, many years before the sura of Bara’a.
b. O you who believe! do not take the unbelievers for friends rather than the believers; do you desire that you should give to Allah a manifest proof against yourselves? (The Holy Quran, Shakir 4:144)
An-Nahhass said that this verse was revealed in Mecca. Also it was said that it was revealed at the hijra.
Some said that it was revealed in Medina depending upon the saying of Aa’isha: “The sura of an-Nissa™ was revealed when I was with the Prophet (S) (his wife).”
Therefore, its revelation was in the first years of hijra.
Any how the sura of an-Nissa’ was revealed before the sura of Bara’a. There were twenty-one suras between them.
c. Those who take the unbelievers for guardians rather than believers. Do they seek honor from them? Then surely all honor is for Allah. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 4:139)
This verse was a part of sura of an-Nissa’, which was revealed before the sura of Bara’a.
d. Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 3:28)
This verse was one of the first verses in the beginning of the sura of Aal Imran. The beginning of the sura, until the eightieth verse or some more, was revealed on the day when the delegation of Najran
came to the Prophet (S) in the first years of hijra.
It was mentioned that this verse was revealed about Obada bin as-Samit on the day (battle) of al-Ahzab in the fifth year of hijra.
Any how the sura of Aal Imran was revealed before the sura of Bara’a and there were twenty-four suras between them.
e. It is alike to them whether you beg forgiveness for them or do not beg forgiveness for them; Allah will never forgive them. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 63:6)
The sura of al-Munafiqoon, which this verse was a part of, was revealed in the year when the Prophet (S) and his army fought against the people of al-Mustalaq. It was the sixth year of hijra and it was definitely before the sura of Bara’a.
There were many other verses forbidding from supporting the polytheists, from praying Allah to forgive them and from being loving and kind to them.
The Prophet (S) kept on praying Allah to forgive his uncle and this was the utmost support and being loving and kind to him. Even the false tradition showed that the Prophet (S) kept on that and he didn’t stop except when this forbidding verse was revealed as the tradition pretended.
Could we-the Muslims-ascribe to the Prophet (S) a doing that his God, Who had sent him to guide the people, had forbidden him from?
Was it possible for the Prophet (S) to beg forgiveness for his uncle if he was a polytheist whereas there were many verses forbidding him from that? Did the Prophet (S) not pay any attention to those verses or he refused to obey Allah until this verse of the sura of Bara’a was revealed to him?
This sura itself had many other forbidding verses but why didn’t the Prophet (S) obey Allah except when this special verse was revealed to him? O Allah! Forgive us!
We did not know how to justify the continuous praying of the Prophet (S) for forgiving his uncle while Allah every time revealed to him a verse ordering him to cut every relation with the polytheists!
What raving it was! Was that possible to be, ascribed to the Prophet of guidance and mercifulness?
It was not but defaming the sanctity of the Prophet (S), violating his high position, and causing harm to him.
O Allah! We seek Your protection from causing any harm to Your messenger in order not to be liable to Your wrath and punishment as You threatened whoever would harm a hair of him according to the verses and the traditions!
3. We found many traditions and sayings that contradicted these traditions, which talked about why this verse was revealed.
We quoted here some of them:
a. Imam Ali (as) said, “I heard someone praying Allah to forgive his parents whereas they were polytheists. I said to him: “Do you beg forgiveness for your parents whereas they were polytheists?” He said, “Didn’t Abraham pray Allah to forgive his father?” I mentioned that to the Prophet (S) and then the following verses were revealed:
It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe that they should ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even though they should be near relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are inmates of the flaming fire. And Ibrahim asking forgiveness for his sire was only owing to a promise which he had made to him; but when it became clear to him that he was an enemy of Allah, he declared himself to be clear of him; most surely Ibrahim was very tender-hearted forbearing.
(The Holy Quran, Shakir 19:113-114)
This showed that forbidding begging forgiveness for the polytheists was famous among the Muslims; otherwise, Imam Ali (as) would not object to that man, who prayed Allah to forgive his polytheist parents. Imam Ali would not deny that if he were not certain that there was a divine order.
The objection of Imam Ali against this man did not agree with begging forgiveness by the Prophet (S) for his uncle if he was polytheist as it was pretended! And if it was so, the man would answer Imam Ali with another answer and would justify his doing by saying that the Prophet (S) prayed Allah to forgive his polytheist uncle, for example!
But the man justified his doing by saying that Abraham prayed Allah to forgive his father and then the verse was revealed to explain why Abraham had begged forgiveness for his father.
When Prophet Abraham (as) prayed Allah to forgive his father
while he was still alive, he hoped that his father might be guided and be faithful but when Prophet Muhammad (S) prayed Allah to forgive his uncle after his death that because his uncle was faithful. It would not be justified that the Prophet (S) hoped that his uncle might be guided and be faithful because his uncle was no longer alive.
Zayni Dahlan said about this tradition of Imam Ali (as): “The tradition was true because we found a true tradition narrated by ibn Abbas confirming this tradition. Ibn Abbas said, “The Muslims used to pray Allah to forgive their parents until this verse was revealed. When this verse was revealed they stopped begging forgiveness for their dead parents but they were not forbidden from begging forgiveness for their live parents until they died.
Then Allah revealed,
And Ibrahim asking forgiveness for his sire was only owing to a promise, which he had made to him. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 19:113-114)
It meant that he asked for forgiveness for his father as long as he was alive but when he died, Abraham (as) stopped begging forgiveness for him.”
This was true evidence and doing according to it would be more correct. It showed that the verse concerned those, who prayed Allah to forgive their polytheist parents and not concerned Abu Talib.”
b. The Muslims asked the Prophet (S): “Do we pray Allah to forgive our parents, who died in the pre-Islamic time?” Then Allah revealed this verse and showed that neither a prophet nor a believer should pray for an unbeliever or beg forgiveness for him/her.
c. The believers said: “Don’t we pray Allah to forgive our parents whereas Abraham has prayed Allah to forgive his unbelieving father?”
Then Allah revealed this verse: And Ibrahim asking forgiveness for his sire was only owing to a promise, which he had made to him. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 19:113-114)
d. When the Prophet (S) came back from the battle of Tabook, he did the minor hajj and then visited his mother’s tomb. He asked Allah to permit him to beg forgiveness for her and prayed Him to permit him to intercede for her in the Day of Resurrection but Allah didn’t permit him and then the verse was revealed.
e. When the Prophet (S) came to Mecca, he visited his mother’s tomb. He remained beside his mother’s tomb until the sun became hot hoping that Allah might permit him to beg forgiveness for her then Allah revealed these two verses.
f. The Prophet (S) visited his mother’s tomb. He cried and made the others around him cry. He said, “I asked my God’s permission to beg forgiveness for her but He did not permit me but I asked His permission to visit her tomb and He permitted me. Visit the tombs because they remind of the afterlife!”
Abu Hurayra narrated this tradition too. It permitted visiting the tombs and crying for the dead whereas those, who trusted in Abu Hurayra’s traditions blindly, criticized severely these two points and whoever believed in them.
g. The Prophet (S) passed by his mother’s tomb in the year of al-Hudaybiyya.
He asked his God’s permission to visit the tomb. Allah permitted him. He visited the tomb, repaired it, and stayed beside it for some time. Then he asked his God’s permission to beg forgiveness for his mother but Allah did not permit him. He left the tomb crying and feeling sorrowful. The Muslims cried with him and became sorrowful because of his sorrowfulness.
h. Ibn Mas’ood said: “One day the Prophet (S) visited the graves. He sat beside a tomb. He talked to the tomb for a long time and then he cried. I cried for his crying.” He said, “The tomb that I sat beside was my mother’s tomb. I asked my God’s permission to pray for her but He did not permit me and then He revealed:
It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe that they should ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even though they should be near relatives…. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 9:113)
i. Burayda said, “Once I was with the Prophet (S) when he stopped in Asfan where he saw his mother’s tomb. He made wudhu
and offered prayer then he cried and said: I asked my God’s permission to pray for my mother but I was forbidden from doing that then Allah revealed:”
It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe… etc. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 9:113)
j. Az-Zamakhshari mentioned that this verse was revealed about Abu Talib and then he said: “… and it was said: when the Prophet (S) conquered Mecca, he asked that which of his parents was later in dying. It was said to him: Your mother Aamina. So he visited her tomb in al-Abwa’ then he stood up sighing and said: I asked my God’s permission to visit my mother’s tomb and He permitted me but when I asked permission to beg forgiveness for her I was forbidden then this verse was revealed,
It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe… etc.. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 9:113)
This is more correct because the death of Abu Talib was before the hijra and these verses were the last verses of the Quran that were revealed in Medina.”
k. Al-Qastalani said: “It was proved that the Prophet (S) had visited his mother’s tomb when he had performed the minor hajj. He asked his God’s permission to beg forgiveness for her but Allah revealed to him this verse. This was mentioned by al-Hakim and ibn Abu Hatim from ibn Mass’ood and by at-Tabarani from ibn Abbas. This showed that the verse was revealed a long time after the death of Abu Talib and the revelation of a verse wouldn’t be repeated.”
The thought of al-Qastalani here contradicted the thought of as-Sayooti in al-Itqan, who tried to reconcile between the fabricated traditions, some of which defamed Abu Talib and some defamed the Prophet’s mother. He justified that by saying that the revelation of a certain verse might be, repeated in spite of that the revelation of a certain verse could not be repeated (that the same verse could not be revealed twice).
l. Some of the Prophet’s companions said: “O messenger of Allah! Some of our fathers used to be good to their neighbors, helped their relatives, freed the captives, and carried out their promises. Don’t we pray Allah to forgive them?” The Prophet (S) said, “By Allah, I will beg forgiveness for my father as Abraham had begged forgiveness for his father.” So Allah revealed:
It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe… etc.. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 9:113)
Then Allah justified the praying of Abraham for his father by saying:
And Ibrahim asking forgiveness for his sire was only owing to a promise which he had made to him; but when it became clear to him that he was an enemy of Allah, he declared himself to be clear of him. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 19:113-114)
m. The Prophet (S) wanted to beg forgiveness for his father but Allah forbade him from that by saying:
It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe… etc.. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 9:113)
The Prophet (S) said that Abraham had begged forgiveness for his father then Allah revealed:
And Ibrahim asking forgiveness for his sire… etc. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 19:113-114)
n. The Prophet (S) entered Mecca in the year of al-Fat~h (the conquest) victoriously. While he was in some place of Mecca, he saw a tomb. He sat beside it and asked Allah’s permission to beg forgiveness for the one in the tomb but he was not permitted. He left the tomb sorrowfully. He cried and the people began to cry. There were no crying people more than they in that day.
Taha Husayn commented after this tradition by saying: “The narrators were confused about this tomb. They thought that it was the Prophet’s mother’s tomb whereas her tomb was in al-Abwa’. It might be the tomb of the Prophet’s grandfather, the sheikh.”
He meant Abdul Muttalib.
I didn’t know what the value of the word fimightfl was while we were talking about an important historical event having its great value whether in the scales of deeds or men!
We knew Taha Husayn well. He always doubted about every thing. He might deny the light of the sun easily by saying: The sun may be not shining!
But to change his doubt so suddenly to a degree that he proved the unknown and ascribed it to someone, who was free from it, would be strange of him indeed!
It would be better to him, according to his suspecting principle, to refute the pretended matter and to deny the confused case of the tomb from the beginning because the reality would be on his side!
With the same easiness that showed indifference towards the reality, he sent his word, which had no evidence and was not free from the very confusion he accused the historians with.
He said, “He (the Prophet) invited his uncle and insisted upon him to be a Muslim and the man (Abu Talib) was about to accept but the fanaticism of the pre-Islamic paganism prevented him. When he died, his nephew said: “I will pray Allah to forgive you” but the Quran blamed him about that so severely!”
We didn’t care for his attempt to defame the Prophet’s uncle and protector, who fidefended his (the Prophet’s) religion against Qurayshfl as Taha Husayn himself said
but what bothered us was his unruly rush without any prudence until he described the Prophet (S) of being liable to the severe blame of the Quran.
How would the Prophet (S) be blamed severely for inviting and insisting upon his uncle, who had protected him and defended him and his religion, to be a Muslim?
Wasn’t the task of the mission to invite people and to insist upon them to believe in it?
Didn’t the Quran itself order the Prophet (S) to warn his near relatives in the dawn of the mission before warning the public?
Then how would the Quran blame the Prophet (S) for carrying out the orders of the Quran itself?
Did the Quran become confused too as the matter of that pretended tomb when the historians became confused about it and then Dr. Taha Husayn tried to show them the truth when he said that it was the tomb of Abdul Muttalib?
He was not satisfied with making the Prophet (S) liable to the severe blame of the Quran only, but also he considered him as one of the ordinary Muslims, who were, blamed by the Quran for a violative doing.
He said: “Did you see firmer and stricter description of justice without leniency in a situation that didn’t accept any leniency than this verse, in which the Prophet (S) and the Muslims were blamed when they prayed Allah to forgive those, who didn’t deserve forgiveness:
It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe that they should ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even though they should be near relatives…” (The Holy Quran, Shakir 9:113)
This showed us how Taha Husayn was confused like the other historians and that he did not get out of the darkness of suspicions and doubts. Using fiperhapsfl and fimayfl would not change the truth.
We said that we did not care much for the accusation Taha Husayn had ascribed to the Prophet’s uncle, who was the defender of Islam. This book was written to refute such false accusations, one of which was this weak accusation, which had no evidence but it was just a dot among those black lines written against Abu Talib.
o. At-Tabari said, “Some others said: Asking for forgiveness in this subject means prayer.” Then he mentioned a tradition narrated by al-Muthanna from Ata’ bin Rabah saying: “I didn’t give up praying for any one of the Muslims even if it was an Abyssinian woman pregnant by adultery because I didn’t hear that Allah had forbidden praying except for the polytheists. Allah said:
It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe that they should ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even though they should be near relatives…” (The Holy Quran, Shakir 9:113)
You saw that there were some people, who interpreted begging forgiveness as the prayer for the dead. Abu Talib and Khadeeja had died before the prayer for the dead was legislated.
The prayer for the dead would begin as soon as a human being died. So did Allah forbid the Prophet (S) from praying for his uncle whereas nearly ten years had passed since the death of his uncle?
Then how would this thought agree with the fabrication saying that this verse concerned Abu Talib or the Prophet’s mother or father?
p. Imam Ali said: “I told the Prophet (S) of the death of Abu Talib. He cried and said, “Go to wash (make ghusl
for) him, enshroud him and bury him. May Allah forgive him and have mercy upon him!” I did. The Prophet (S) prayed Allah to forgive his uncle for days and he didn’t get out of his house until Gabriel came to him with this verse:
It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe that they should ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even though they should be near relatives….” (The Holy Quran, Shakir 9:113)
You saw according to this thought, which was formed according to the political fancy, that this verse was revealed in the year when Abu Talib died if we didn’t say in the month or in the week, in which Abu Talib died for there was the word fidaysfl whereas the revelation of the sura, which this verse was a part of, was the last thing of the Quran that had been revealed and it was, at least, ten years after the death of Abu Talib.
q. When Abu Talib died, the Prophet (S) said: “Prophet Abraham begged forgiveness for his polytheist father and I will beg forgiveness for my uncle.” Allah revealed:
It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe that they should ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even though they should be near relatives…. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 9:113)
The Prophet (S) became sad. Then Allah revealed to him:
And Ibrahim asking forgiveness for his sire was only owing to a promise which he had made to him; but when it became clear to him that he was an enemy of Allah, he declared himself to be clear of him. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 19:113-114)
According to this tradition the verse was revealed when the Prophet’s uncle died.
r. When Abu Talib died, the Prophet (S) said, “May Allah have mercy upon you and forgive you! I will pray Allah to forgive you until Allah forbids me from it.” Then the Muslims began to pray Allah to forgive their polytheist deads; therefore Allah revealed:
It is not (fit) for the Prophet and those who believe that they should ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even though they should be near relatives…. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 9:113)
These were eighteen so-called traditions talking about the reason of the revelation of this verse.
We didn’t want to discuss them or to put them under the hammer of criticism because much of them had nothing to do with the subject of the book besides that we didn’t trust in everything they had.
But we quoted them to show that there were many contradicted sayings and thoughts about the revelation of the verse or in fact to show the distortion of the real reason of the revelation of this verse.
The first thing that drew the attention to uncover the ignorance of the fabricators was that the fabricators had ascribed contradicted sayings to Ali and ibn Abbas about this verse at the same time whereas the true traditions of Imam Ali and ibn Abbas about Abu Talib contradicted all these fabricated traditions.
So what was the real reason behind this contradiction?
Which one would we depend upon and which one would we brush aside?
One time they said that the verse concerned the Prophet’s uncle, another time his father and a third time his mother!
But the reality showed us that the accusation reached the Prophet’s father and mother as a consequence of what was ascribed to his uncle in order to firm the plot against Abu Talib!
All those traditions agreed upon one thing although they were different in their points of view and aims. They agreed upon that the Prophet (S) prayed Allah to forgive some polytheists, to whom Allah had forbidden him from being loving and kind or begging forgiveness in many occasions and by much many Quranic verses, and that the Prophet (S) didn’t give up disobeying Allah until this special verse was revealed to him!
Consequently, these traditions sloped towards one thing; violating the sanctity of the Prophet (S) and the sanctity of the divine mission! Besides that, it caused harms to the Prophet (S) whether via his uncle, father, or mother!
The reality proved the faithfulness of all the fathers and mothers of the Prophet (S) until they reached the first faithful; Adam (as).
Therefore, al-Halabi became confused when he mentioned some of these fabricated and distorted traditions. He thought that they must be corrected. He tried his best but he did not find any way save to put aside the fire from Abdullah, the Prophet’s father, and throw it upon Abu Talib because among the false traditions there was this tradition:
Some one asked the Prophet (S), “Where is my father?” The Prophet (S) said (and definitely he had never said): “My father and your father are in Hell!!!”
After walking in a zigzag way where al-Halabi accused whomever he liked and however he liked in order to justify this false tradition, he thought that he reached the shore of safety when he said: fiThe Prophet (S) didn’t mean but his uncle when saying (my father).”
Thus, al-Halabi saved from Hell whomever he liked and threw in it whomever he liked!
The least thing we could say about these traditions that they were contradicted and this contradiction would be enough evidence to deprive them of trust and regard.
We found such contradiction even in the same tradition fabricated against Abu Talib, Aamina
or Abdullah. With one look at any tradition of them, the reader would recognize their falseness clearly.
These fabricated traditions, besides their contradiction and untrue or weak series of narrators that made them vain, were refuted by clear irrefutable evidences like the Holy Quran, which proved the purity of the Prophet’s lineage and the purity of the Prophet’s progeny too.
No uncleanness was worse than unbelief and polytheism. Certainly ascribing unbelief or polytheism to the Prophet’s parents or uncle would hurt the sanctity of the Prophet (S) and would consider him as disobedient in loving and praying for unfaithful and polytheist persons whereas Allah had forbidden him from that!
4. The verse, whose meaning and occasion were distorted, had a meaning of negation and not prohibition.
The verse showed that the Prophet (S) didn’t pray Allah to forgive the polytheists. Neither did the Muslims, who followed his principles. The verse denied begging forgiveness by the Prophet (S) for any one, who was unfaithful, and not prohibited him from that because he was infallible from committing any mistake.
So anyone, whom the Prophet (S) had prayed Allah to forgive, must be a faithful and we were not to doubt about that a bit as long as we believed in the Prophet and his infallibility and believed that he wouldn’t do but rightful things.
The verse did never show that the Prophet (S) used to beg forgiveness for the polytheists and then Allah prohibited him from that. Interpreting the verse in this way would defame the sanctity of the Prophet (S) and the position of the prophecy especially that the Prophet (S) had received many verses forbidding him from doing that a long time before the revelation of this certain verse.
We found in this verse the secret behind begging forgiveness by the Prophet (S) for his uncle. There were many people, who didn’t know about the faithfulness of Abu Talib because he used to conceal it and when they saw the Prophet (S) begging forgiveness for his uncle, they thought that it was permissible to pray Allah to forgive their polytheist relatives, hence Allah might reveal this verse to say to the Muslims that this thing was not permissible and when the Prophet (S) begged forgiveness for his uncle that definitely his uncle was not polytheist so the Muslims were not to beg forgiveness for their polytheist parents. After that, the verse explained the situation of Prophet Abraham (as) towards his father.
There was a difference between begging forgiveness for a live person and for a dead person as we referred to previously.
The verse showed that the Prophet (S), when begging forgiveness for his uncle or others, did not beg forgiveness for a polytheist and so his begging forgiveness for someone would be evidence proving the faithfulness of that one.
The sacred position of the prophecy and the sanctity of the mission prevented the Prophet (S) from praying Allah to forgive a polytheist or from committing what Allah had forbidden him from or doing what might discontent Allah.
Many people knew that when the Prophet (S) prayed Allah to forgive his uncle that was because his uncle was faithful so they did not use that as an excuse to justify their begging forgiveness for their polytheist fathers.
We found that when we mentioned the conversation between Imam Ali and that man, who prayed Allah to forgive his polytheist parents. The man justified his doing according to the story of Abraham.
5. Some ones mentioned a complement with the tradition, which we quoted from al-Bukhari and Muslim. They said, “When Abu Talib was dying, al-Abbas looked at him and saw him moving his lips. He listened to him carefully and said (al-Abbas said): “O my nephew! He said the word that you asked him to say.”
This was a witness by al-Abbas showing that the last thing Abu Talib had said before dying was the shahada that the Prophet (S) had asked him for as the tradition said.
Those, who thought that the tradition was true, had to believe in all of the tradition or to throw all of it aside. They did not have to choose what agreed with their fancies and to leave what objected their fancies.
6. If we lowered the curtain upon the confession of Abu Talib, his sayings and doings, which showed his faith clearly, if we forgot his will before the people of Quraysh when he was dying and if we ignored the Prophet’s praying Allah to forgive him, his witnesses, his loving and loyalty to him, the witnesses of Ahlul Bayt and the witnesses of the companions like Abu Bakr, Abu Tharr and ibn Abbas… if we left all these aside and submitted to this tradition -after it was refuted by clear evidences- then the very saying of Abu Talib “on the religion of Abdul Muttalib” would be a certain evidence proving his faithfulness.
What was this religion of Abdul Muttalib?
Wasn’t it the religion of Prophet Abraham (as)?
Wasn’t Abdul Muttalib on the religion of Allah that He had chosen when He had sent Abraham as his messenger?
Didn’t Abdul Muttalib believe in the One and Only God, the Day of Punishment and in sending his grandson to spread the mission of his God? Didn’t Abdul Muttalib wish, when he was dying, to remain alive until he would witness the spread of the light and the shining of the sun of his great grandson?
But this was just some ooze that was thrown upon Abu Talib and it hit the Prophet’s mother Aamina one time, his father Abdullah another time and his grandfather Abdul Muttalib a third time.
In fact it was the ooze that was thrown upon Ali to defame his high position because fithe low would envy whoever was higher than themfl and consequently they threw some of that ooze upon his father thinking that they might defeat Ali by defaming his father and hence no one of these great men was safe from this harm even the Prophet (S) himself as long as the end would justify the means according to the account of the enemies of the rightness.
Proving the faithfulness of Abdul Muttalib did not concern our subject although his faithfulness did not need to be proved. We mentioned the evidences of his faithfulness in a previous chapter in this book.
There were many detailed books about this subject. It was mentioned that as-Sayooti had written six books about the faithfulness of Prophet Muhammad’s fathers.
Abu Talib said fion the religion of Abdul Muttalibfl in that tradition-if the tradition was real-to mystify the truth before the people of Quraysh surrounding him. He used this policy to be free in serving the mission and the Prophet of Islam. If he did not do so, he would not be able to perform the great deeds he had performed or to defend the Prophet and his mission.
A Look at the Verse (Surely you cannot guide...)
As for the verse:
Surely you cannot guide whom you love, but Allah guides whom He pleases) (The Holy Quran, Shakir 28:56
We have showed the reasons behind distorting the meaning of this verse and saying that it concerned Abu Talib and we uncovered the secrets behind fabricating the tradition.
Although the fabricated tradition, which distorted the meaning of the Quranic verse, was refuted, we thought that we had to talk about distorting this verse in some points.
1. There were some people, who fabricated traditions about this verse, other than Sa’eed bin al-Mussayyab and Abu Hurayra that we just refuted them and their series of narrators. We wanted here to discuss two other traditions concerning the same verse and to discuss their narrators.
a. Abu Sahl as-Sariy bin Sahl from Abdul Quddoossad-Damashqi from Abu Salih that ibn Abbas said: “The verse (Surely you cannot guide whom you love, but Allah guides whom He pleases) was revealed about Abu Talib; the Prophet (S) insisted upon him to be a Muslim but he refused, so Allah revealed this verse.”
Ath-Thahabi said about as-Sariy, “Ibn Adiy considered him as weak and said that he pirated traditions and ibn Kharash considered him as a liar.” Then he mentioned some of his traditions and said before them: “… and among his disasters (wonders or oddities)… and among his afflictions…!”
Al-Ameeny considered him as one of the liars according to many historians.
As for Abdul Quddooss ad-Damashqi, Abdur Razaq said, “I haven’t seen Ibnul Mubarak ascribing the word “liar” openly except to Abdul Qudooss.” Al-Fallass said, “They (the historians) agreed upon leaving his traditions aside.” An-Nassa’iy said: “He was not trusty.” Ibn Adiy said: “His traditions were denied whether in their series of narrators or their text.”
Isma’eel bin Ayyash said: “I don’t witness against one of being a liar except against Abdul Quddooss.”
Abdullah bin al-Mubarak said: “Being a highwayman is better to me than to narrate a tradition from Abdul Quddooss ash-Shami.”
As for Abu Salih We didn’t know who he was!
Finally ascribing the tradition to ibn Abbas uncovered the plot and removed the cover from above the lie.
Ibn Abbas was born in the Shi’b when the Prophet (S) and the Hashemites were blockaded there three years before the hijra;
the same year, in which Abu Talib died, so how could ibn Abbas see what happened to narrate such a tradition?
Ibn Abbas was free from that! We saw how he answered when he was asked about the faithfulness of Abu Talib. It was mentioned in the previous chapter under the title (The Sayings of Ahlul Bayt).
b. Then the two liars; as-Sariy and Abdul Quddooss ascribed the fabricated tradition to ibn Omar.
Abdullah bin Omar was born in the third year of the prophetic mission
so he was about seven years old when Abu Talib died. It was not easy for him in this age to attend or to describe the death of Abu Talib and it was not possible to depend upon his tradition in this age if it was supposed that he had attended the event.
No one other than these two liars, who fabricated the tradition and ascribed it to ibn Abbas one time and to ibn Omar the other time, had mentioned this false tradition.
2. As for the verse itself, we found it in the middle between two verses:
And when they hear idle talk they turn aside from it and say: We shall have our deeds and you shall have your deeds; peace be on you, we do not desire the ignorant. Surely you cannot guide whom you love, but Allah guides whom He pleases, and He knows best the followers of the right way. And they say: If we follow the guidance with you, we shall be carried off from our country. What! Have We not settled them in a safe, sacred territory to which fruits of every kind shall be drawn? -- a sustenance from Us; but most of them do not know. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 28:55-57)
The first verse concerned the believers. It described their deeds.
The third verse described those, who didn’t believe fearing that they might be carried off from their country.
The distorted verse came in the middle between the two. It was addressed to the Prophet (S). Allah said to him that guiding those people was not because of his love to them and that the Prophet (S) was not the only guider of them; that they weren’t guided by hearing the Prophet’s invitation only, but also by the will and support of Allah.
This was not the only verse in the Quran that had this meaning. There were many other verses such as:
1. To make them walk in the right way is not incumbent on you, but Allah guides aright whom He pleases. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 2:272)
2. If you desire for their guidance, yet surely Allah does not guide him who leads astray. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 16:37)
3. Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? (The Holy Quran, Shakir 4:88)
4. … but can you show the way to the blind though they will not see? (The Holy Quran, Shakir 10:43)
5. … then Allah makes whom He pleases err and He guides whom He pleases and He is the Mighty, the Wise. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 14:4)
6. Thus does Allah make err whom He pleases, and He guides whom He pleases.. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 47:31)
7. whomsoever Allah guides, he is the rightly guided one, and whomsoever He causes to err, you shall not find for him any friend to lead (him) aright. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 18:17)
We were not to quote all the Quranic verses having this meaning. There were many other than these mentioned above showing that the guidance would be by the support of Allah without depriving man of his will as long as man was willing to be guided. Therefore, we found many other verses ascribing guidance or deviation to man himself like this verse:
Therefore whoever goes aright, he goes aright only for the good of his own soul, and whoever goes astray, he goes astray only to the detriment of it. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 10:108)
And many other verses we didn’t want to quote.
3. It would be better to mention some traditions showing the reason of the revelation of the verse as it was thought by some persons:
a. The Prophet (S) was stabbed with a bayonet in his cheek during the battle of Uhud. He fell down to the ground and then stood up. One of his teeth was broken and blood began to flow on his face. He said, “O Allah! Guide my people for they don’t know the truth!” Then Allah revealed this verse:
Surely you cannot guide whom you love, but Allah guides whom He pleases. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 28:56)
b. It was said that some people showed their faithfulness in the Prophet (S) and in Islam but when the Prophet (S) immigrated to Medina, they stayed in Mecca and showed unbelieving and reverting to their old beliefs. When the Prophet (S) and his companions of the Muslims knew about that, they disagreed about it; some of them thought that they were still faithful and their showing unbelief was as taqiya because they were obliged to do that as Allah had said:
Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 3:28)
And others thought that they were unbelievers because they had to immigrate with the Prophet (S) if they liked to save their faithfulness, therefore this group and that group came to the Prophet (S) where some of them liked that the Prophet (S) might considered them as believers for the kinship between these and those, who stayed in Mecca. But the Prophet (S) put off the answer until the Archangel Gabriel revealed to him:
Surely you cannot guide whom you love, but Allah guides whom He pleases. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 28:56)
It was said that the meaning of the verse was as: “You don’t determine, name or witness for whomever you like as faithful but it is Allah, who does that if that person deserves to be called as faithful.”
c. It was said that this verse concerned al-Harith bin Othman bin Nawfal bin Abd Manaf, whom the Prophet (S) wished and liked to be a Muslim.
Some of the interpreters said that the verse: (And they say, If we follow the guidance with you, we shall be carried off from our country), which came after that verse, concerned al-Harith.
And it was said that all the Muslims agreed upon that the second verse (And they say: If we follow the guidance with you…) concerned al-Harith.
d. The messenger of Caesar brought a book to the Prophet (S). The Prophet (S) put the book in his lap then asked the man, “Where are you from?” The man said: “I am from Tanookh.” The Prophet (S) said to him, “Do you like to believe in the religion of your father Abraham?” the man said: “I am just a messenger of some people and I am on their religion until I come back to them.” The Prophet (S) laughed, looked at his companions and said,
Surely you cannot guide whom you love, but Allah guides whom He pleases.
These were four sayings about the reason of the revelation of the verse. As we said before that, a verse couldn’t be revealed to the Prophet (S) twice, so how was it distorted to concern Abu Talib? It was that false tradition, which was fabricated by those, who neither refrained from lying nor respect the sanctity of a Muslim!
4. If we gave up and confessed that the verse was revealed about Abu Talib, then it would be as a weapon in the hand of those, who defended Abu Talib’s faithfulness, more than those, who accused him of being unfaithful because those who said that the verse (Surely you cannot guide whom you love, but Allah guides whom He pleases) concerned Abu Talib, they confirmed that the Prophet (S) loved him for the verse meant: O Muhammad! You do not guide whom you love but Allah guide him!
Definitely when the Prophet (S) loved someone, it would be sufficient evidence proving the faithfulness of that one because the Prophet (S) was forbidden from loving other than the faithful ones.
On the other side, the verse would be evidence showing the high faithfulness of Abu Talib because his faithfulness then would be out of the guidance of Allah and not out of the invitation of the Prophet (S) only. In fact, this showed that there was a divine care towards Abu Talib.
5. After all this, we didn’t find an improvised saying weaker than the saying of az-Zajjaj when pretending that: “The Muslims agreed upon that this verse had been revealed to concern Abu Talib.”
When was this consensus of the Muslims? Yes! It was in the world of imagination and illusion!
Was there any evidence confirming this false pretense? Didn’t he fear the bad end of this disgraceful accusation or the responsibility of such a reckless decision?
The least thing in his saying was excluding Ahlul Bayt and their followers, the Shia, who refuted this false pretense, from among the Muslims and excluding another group of the Prophet’s companions, who acknowledged the truth and confessed the faithfulness of Abu Talib, because if he didn’t exclude these people from the Muslims, his pretense about the consensus would by invalidated by a saying of any one of Ahlul Bayt or the companions.
The strange thing in this concern -and how much wonders and strange things there were in this subject- was that his evidence about this illusory consensus was a false tradition mentioned without any series of narrators so that we could find whether the narrators were liars, fabricators, or something else. But it was undoubtedly that the tradition was derived from those false traditions that were just refuted and he might add to them something of his imagination to make the little lie grow.
The contradiction was apparent in the tradition and the marks of fabrication were clear between the words ascribed to Abu Talib: “O my nephew! I know that you are truthful but I hate to be said that Abu Talib slackened when about to die” until he said: “… but I will die on the religion of the sheikhs Abdul Muttalib, Hashem, and Abd Manaf.”
We didn’t want to repeat the argument about this fabricated tradition but we liked to refer to the saying of al-Qurtubi, who found the word “consensus” so big and he wanted to lessen something of its sharpness so he commented: fiIt is more correct to say: The most of the interpreters agreed upon that the verse was revealed concerning Abu Talib.”
But he wasn’t saved from what az-Zajjaj had fallen into because the two pretenses had no evidence nor they depended upon reason or reality.
The same was the saying of ibn Katheer when saying about this verse: “It was proved in the two Sahihs
that the verse was revealed about the Prophet’s uncle Abu Talib, who protected the Prophet (S), defended him, assisted him and loved him greatly; natural love and not (legal!)…”
Then he cited those fabricated traditions, which were already refuted, and then he sent his decision indifferently without thinking of any responsibility or anything else. Would such commercial news be proved by false traditions fabricated by some of the liars?
And it was funny to quote the saying of at-Tarmithi about one of these traditions: “… it was accepted but odd. We didn’t know it except from the tradition of Yazeed bin Kayssan.”
He acknowledged that it was odd and that it was only narrated by Yazeed, who was unreliable and no one depended upon his traditions as we knew before when we discussed the series of the narrators of the tradition in a previous chapter, so what made at-Tarmithi say that it was accepted?
Also we didn’t want to argue with ibn Katheer about the love, which he liked to call a natural love and not a (legal) love, because this book was full of evidences proving that the great love Abu Talib had towards Muhammad was towards Muhammad the Prophet not Muhammad the nephew!
Such raving was called interpretation one time, history another time and tradition a third time. Like that was the saying: “Abu Sa’eed bin Rafi’ said: “I asked ibn Omar: Was this verse (Surely you cannot guide whom you love, but Allah guides whom He pleases) concerning Abu Jahl and Abu Talib?” He said: “Yes, it was.”
We didn’t find any series of narrators for this saying besides that it was just an opinion ascribed to ibn Omar.
But how did reason accept such opinion -even if the faithfulness of Abu Talib was not proved- where it put Abu Jahl and Abu Talib in one position?
How would the two; Abu Talib in his love, protection and his devotedness in defending the Prophet (S) and Abu Jahl in his opposite situation, be equal for the Prophet (S) and in the same position where the Prophet (S) loved for both of them to be guided and to be Muslims?
Who knows! Perhaps they thought that the Prophet (S) loved Abu Jahl more but Allah did not want that!
The values became under the feet, the qualities were lost, and beauty and ugliness were equal… defending the Prophet (S), and fighting him were the same! How bad it was!
This impudent attack was not against Abu Talib; it was against the Prophet (S) himself where he was considered as unjust and unfair in dealing with two contradicted situations in the same way, in which he wronged justice and violated rightness! O Allah, forgive us!
Interpreting the verse according to the personal opinions did not stop at a certain end. We found that every one interpreted it as he liked and according to his fancy and passion.
We found that someone divided the verse between Abu Talib and al-Abbas when saying that the beginning of the verse concerned Abu Talib whereas its end concerned al-Abbas.
Between the death of Abu Talib and the believing of al-Abbas in Islam there was a long period besides that al-Abbas became a Muslim years after the revelation of this verse.
We referred previously to our respected father’s saying that all the accusations ascribed to Abu Talib were because he was the father of Ali, otherwise he wouldn’t be accused of anything if he was the father of anyone else than Ali; therefore defaming Abu Talib was just a means to defame his son Ali!
We found some of the distortion fabricated about the verse confirming this thought.
Mo’awiya asked Samra to distort a Quranic verse against Ali and another verse in the interest of ibn Muljam (Ali’s killer) as we mentioned in the first chapter (At the Threshold). Besides that he wanted a verse to be distorted against Abu Talib.
Someone said, “The verse, (Surely you cannot guide whom you love, but Allah guides whom He pleases) concerned Abu Talib because the Prophet (S) liked Abu Talib to be a Muslim and so this verse was revealed. Meanwhile he disliked Wahshi (the killer of Hamza, the Prophet’s uncle) to be a Muslim then this verse was revealed:
Say: O my servants! who have acted extravagantly against their own souls, do not despair of the mercy of Allah. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 29:53)
So Wahshi became a Muslim but Abu Talib didn’t!”
In order to certify this silly saying they ascribed it to ibn Abbas to show us the extent of confusion they reached.
It was just one of those opinions put to serve the obscene aims and the fabricator would never mind whomever or whatever it defamed or what values it destroyed!
The Prophet (S), according to this thought, contradicted Allah. He liked what Allah disliked and disliked what Allah liked!
Allah, glory is to Him, did not want Abu Talib to be a Muslim! Perhaps there was an old enmity between them or perhaps the reason of that enmity was that, that Abu Talib had brought up the Prophet (S), protected him, defended him, and defended his mission and his followers of the believers!
But the Prophet (S) liked Abu Talib to be a Muslim as a kind of loyalty to him and so the two wills contradicted but then the stronger will, the will of Allah, won and Allah achieved his opponency against Abu Talib by preventing him from being a Muslim!
As for Wahshi, also the two wills; of Allah and that of His messenger, contradicted and at the end Wahshi became a Muslim!
The Prophet (S) hated Wahshi, who had killed his uncle Hamza, and the hatred grew in his heart that he didn’t want him to be a Muslim but Allah, the Merciful, the Kind forgave the crime of Wahshi against Hamza, the hero of Islam, and didn’t pay any attention to His messenger’s emotions. The result of the fight between the two wills made Wahshi a believer because it was the will of Allah!
Wouldn’t it be better for them to add to the great faithfulness and high virtues of Wahshi his addiction to the wine, which he didn’t leave a minute until it mixed with his blood and that he couldn’t wake up from its effects until the last moment of his life, which was full of sins and crimes!
What raving and silly speech those dotards uttered without knowing what they raved!
How did this verse concern Wahshi whereas it was general and it concerned all the Muslims? It was revealed in Mecca whereas Wahshi pretended to be a Muslim many years after the revelation of this verse.
Worse than Wahshi were those, who never cared for any responsibility and who followed the mirage and jumbled in the darkness!
Notes
0%
Author: The Scholar Abdullah Al Khunaizy
