After you finish this article, please visit:
Rebuttal to Silas' "The Killing of Abu Afak" article:
The following article was taken from: http://www.geocities.com/noorullahwebsite/silas-kill.html
The Killing of Abu ‘Afak
and
‘Asma’ bint Marwan
by Hesham Azmy
Published in Oct., 29th, 2003
The vulgar Christian missionary, Silas, has accused Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon
him) of killing Abu 'Afak and 'Asma' bint Marwan. In this paper, insha’Allah, we are
going to refute these false charges against the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), wa
Allah-ul-Must’an.
Islamic
Methodology of Reports’ Evaluation.
The Killing of Abu ‘Afak: Where
is The Isnad?
The Killing of
‘Asma’: True Story? or Forgery?
Prophetic
Attitude Toward Women and Old Men in War.
Conclusion.
Islamic Methodology of Reports’ Evaluation
We must explain the methodology of Muslim scholars before we comment on any Islamic report. Take for example the news reported on presidents today! If the vice president gives a certain statement concerning the opinion of the president in a certain matter, then this statement is transmitted by a member of the secretary to a journalists who published it in the newspaper, what is the value of this report?
I answer that it could be right or wrong and we cannot be sure unless we know the reliability of the source.
If we find that the report is indeed transmitted by the secretary member on authority of the vice president and that each of them is well known for accuracy in transmission and truthfulness in speech, how can we evaluate this report?
I answer that I tend to believe it.
This is exactly what Muslim scholars require in any report to be valid and its attribution to God's Messenger (peace be upon him) can be accepted. They actually add two more things; they must make sure that the report itself is not contradictory to other more authentic reports otherwise it will be considered eccentric! Also, they must exclude any hidden flaws in the text of the report, these flaws are detailed in specialized volumes of Hadith.
Can we then accept the report as valid?
Not yet, after we verify that the chain of transmitters is intact without interruption and that all reporters are honest sane individuals, we must make sure that each reporter has received the report directly from the preceding one and that the report itself is in agreement with other authentic reports without flaws. The eminent Hafiz Ibn Kathir states,
Authentic Hadith is the Musnad hadith whose chain is continuous through transmission of an accurate sane memorizer on authority of an accurate sane memorizer till its termination without being eccentric or flawed.
(Ibn Kathir, Al-Ba'eth Al-Hathith, page 28. Published by Maktabat-us-Sunnah, Cairo, Egypt)
Is there a method more precise and meticulous than this?!
There is no nation in the entire history that took care of reporting events and their verification as Muslims did, the Western Orientalist Bernard Lewis notes,
From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition. "Traditional science", as it was called, differed in many respects from modern historical source criticism, and modern scholarship has always disagreed with evaluations of traditional scientists about the authenticity and accuracy of ancient narratives. But their careful scrutiny of the chains of transmission and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic historiography a professionalism and sophistication without precedent in antiquity and without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison, the historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meagre, and even the more advanced and complex historiography of Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume, variety and analytical depth.
(Bernard Lewis, Islam In History, 1993, Open Court Publishing, pp.104-105)
Then, we talk about historical references written by Muslim authors. First of all, these books are not trustworthy references due to the fact that they do not follow proper methodology of transmission.
Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal sums up the Muslim point of view as regards the trustworthiness of the biographical reports when he declares that the biographies …
…. are not based on any principle.
The early Muslim scholars who compiled books of Hadith and scrutinized this particular field undertook thorough and painstaking investigations to determine the authenticity of the reports from the Holy Prophet's time by tracing them back to eye-witnesses of the time, through unbroken lines of reliable narrators. As a result, they never held a high opinion of the biographies whose authors had simply copied masses of reports without check or criticism. One such scholar of Hadith, Hafiz Zain-ud-Din of Iraq, says about the biographies,
The student should know that the biographies contain all kinds of reports, both true and false.
I believe this should make us depend only upon reliable sources authenticated by Muslim specialists in Hadith.
The Killing of Abu ‘Afak
Where is The Isnad?
According to Ibn Sa’d and Ibn Ishaq, Abu ‘Afak was a 120 years old Jewish man who abused the Prophet (peace be upon him) verbally, so the latter launched a raid under the command of Salem Ibn ‘Umair to kill him. Well, we know that Ibn Ishaq lived in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after Higra, as well as Al-Waqidi from whom Ibn Sa’d (died 230 A.H.) copied the story of Abu ‘Afak.
As explained above, the chain of reporters of the story from eye-witnesses of the event till Ibn Ishaq or Al-Waqidi must be examined and verified. So, our legitimate question is: where is the isnad (i.e., chain of reporters)?
Unfortunately, references of Seera do not provide such information. Actually, we are told that this story has no isnad at all; neither Ibn Ishaq (or his disciple Ibn Hesham) nor Al-Waqidi (or his disciple Ibn Sa’d) provide such thing!!
In this case, the story is rated by Hadith scholars as “of no basis” indicating that it has reached the lowest degree of criticism regarding its isnad. This is in fact a proper scientific position because we cannot accept such a problematic story without evidence.We are obliged to reject the story of the killing of Abu ‘Afak by Salem Ibn ‘Umair at the Prophet’s command.
In brief, we have no commitment to accept such a baseless story - according to scientific criteria of reeports’ criticism - which strangely appeared in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after Higra.
The Killing of ‘Asma’
True Story? or Forgery?
The charge is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had ordered the killing of 'Asma' when she insulted him with her poetry, and the implications are that he (peace be upon him) "stiffles" criticism by murdering his opponents. As it is usually the case where the history of Islam and the character of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is concerned, it is left to the Muslims to throw some light on authenticity of the story in which this incident is reported by the sources and educate the missionaries in matters which they have no clue about.
The story of the killing of 'Asma' bint Marwan is mentioned by Ibn Sa'd in "Kitab At-Tabaqat Al-Kabir"[1] and by the author of "Kinz-ul-'Ummal" under number 44131 who attributes it to Ibn Sa'd, Ibn 'Adiyy and Ibn 'Asaker. What is interesting is that Ibn 'Adiyy mentions it in his book "Al-Kamel" on the authority of Ja'far Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn As-Sabah on authority of Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Ash-Shami on authority of Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj Al-Lakhmi on authority of Mujalid on authority of Ash-Shu'abi on authority of Ibn 'Abbas, and added that
...this isnad (chain of reporters) is not narrated on authority of Mujalid but by Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj and they all (other reporters in the chain) accuse Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging it.[2]
It is also reported by Ibn al-Gawzi in "Al-'Ilal"[3] and is listed among other flawed reports.
So according to its isnad, the report is forged - because one of its reporters is accused of fabricating hadith. Hence, such a story is better put in trash can.
Prophetic Attitude Toward Women and Old Men in War
I’m going to display here the *authentic* Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) regarding women and old men in war. No baseless or forged reports are allowed here; we will only display authentic reports.
Well, in brief, authentic Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibits the killing of women in war.
Narrated Anas bin Malik: A Jewish woman brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of God’s Apostle.
(Sahih al-Bukhârî, Volume 3, Book 47, Number 786)
The Prophet (peace be upon him) refused to kill a woman who did intentionally try to poison him, but the Christian missionaries, using a fabricated story, wants us to believe that he ordered the killing of a woman who only abused him verbally.
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Messenger of God (peace be upon him) saw the corpse of a woman who had been slain in one of the raids, and he disapproved of it and forbade the killing of women and children.
(Sahih-ul-Bukhârî, Volume 4, Book 52, Numbers 257 & 258. Also see Mutta Malik, Book 21, Section 3, Number 9)
Due to this prohibition, scholars of Abu Hanifah’s School of Thought state that apostate women are not to be killed because the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade killing women and since the prohibition is general, then it includes apostate women.[4]
Even after the Prophet's demise, his Sunnah was preserved by the Muslims ...
Abu Bakr advised Yazid: "I advise you ten things: Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camel except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly."
(Mutta Malik, Book 21, Section 3, Number 10)
Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mabarakfuri sums it up in "Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtoum",
The Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] had issued honourable strict rules about war and bade his soldiers and leaders to comply with them. They were forbidden to break those rules under any circumstances. In reference to Sulaiman bin Buraidah’s version, who said that his father had told him that whenever the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] appointed a leader on an army or on a battalion, he used to recommend him to fear Allâh, the Great and All-Mighty, when dealing with those who were closest to him and to be good with all Muslims. Then the Prophet [pbuh] would say to him:
"Let your invasion be in the Name of Allâh and for His sake. Fight those who disbelieve in Allâh. Invade but do not exaggerate nor commit treachery. Never deform the corpse of a dead person or kill an infant child."
The Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] asked people to facilitate but he forbade them to bear down hard on others or constrain. "Pacify", he said, "and do not disincline". [Sahih Muslim 2/82,83] When it happened that he arrived at the battlefield by night, he would never invade the enemy till it was morning. He utterly forbade burning (i.e. torturing people) in fire, killing children and women or even beating them. He also forbade theft and robbery and proceeded so far as to say gains acquired through plundering are not less forbidden than the flesh of a corpse. Corruption of tillage and race and cutting down of trees were all forbidden unless they were badly needed and there was no other substitute:
"Do not kill a wounded person nor run after a fleeing one or kill a captive."
He decreed that envoys cannot be killed. He also stressed on not killing those who made covenants. He even said:
"He whoever kills one who is under pledge to a covenant shall not smell Paradise, though its smell could be experienced at a forty-year distance from it."
There were some other noble rules which purified wars from their Al-Jahiliyah (pre-Islamic) filthiness and turned them into sacred wars. [Za'd Al-Ma'ad 2/64-68; and for details Jihad in Islam p.216-262]
I believe this should clarify any acquired misconception readers hold toward our beloved Noble Prophet (peace be upon him). And to God is the judgement in all affairs.
Conclusion
The Western Orientalist Bernard Lewis notes,
From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition.
(Bernard Lewis, Islam In History, 1993, Open Court Publishing, pp.104-105)
We have utilized their scientific methodology to expose the false narratives attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) about the alleged killing of Abu ‘Afak and ‘Asma’ bint Marwan. Examination of isnad (i.e., chain of reporters) has revealed the unreliability of both stories. Also, examination of matn (i.e., text) has revealed their inevitable contradiction with vigorously authentic traditions and established Islamic principles. 'Abdûr-Rahmân I. Doi had stated that
As far as the Matn is concerned, the following principles of criticism of the Hadith are laid down:
(1) The Hadith should not be contrary to the text or the teaching of the Qur'an or the accepted basic principles of Islam.
(2) The Hadith should not be against the dictates of reason or laws of nature and common experience.
(3) The Hadith should not be contrary to the Traditions which have already been accepted by authorities as reliable and authentic by applying all principles.
(4) The Hadith which sings the praises and excellence of any tribe, place or persons should be generally rejected
(5) The Hadith that contains the dates and minute details of the future events should be rejected.
(6) The Hadith that contains some remarks of the Prophet which are not in keeping with the Islamic belief of Prophethood and the position of the Holy Prophet or such expressions as may not be suitable to him, should be rejected.[5]
But critics may have an objection; if these stories are untrue, then why they are mentioned in Islamic references in the first place? In response, we have shown the position of learned Muslim scholars toward references of biographies whose authors used to copy masses of reports without check or criticism. These particular stories even prove their unscientific methodology because they are reported without isnad at all. This is extremely unusual of any respectable scholar. Ibn Jarir At-Tabari (224-310 A.H.) in his encyclopedic book of history “Tarik Al-Umam wa Al-Mulouk” did not give mention of these stories at all despite the fact that he mentions far less significant reports in his book.
Hence, based on the empirical evidence, we can therefore conclude that the so-called "killing" of Abu ‘Afak and ‘Asma' bint Marwan is inherently false and had never happened. This certainly throws the spanner into the works of the missionary's "only" conclusion, which is based upon nothing but hatred, paranoia and xenophobia towards the elect Apostle of God, Muhammad (peace be upon him).
And Allah knows best.
| Acknowledgement: The author of this article would like to express his gratefulness to brother MENJ of Bismika Allahuma for his assistance and encouragement till this article came to existence. |
(1) Ibn Sa'd, Kitab At-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, Volume 1, pages 27-28.
(2) Ibn 'Adiyy, Al-Kamel, Volume 6, page 145.
(3) Ibn al-Gawzi, Al-'Ilal, Volume 1, page 279.
(4) Al-Hasafky, Sharh Ad-Durr-el-Mukhtar, Volume 1, page 483.
(5) 'Abdûr-Rahmân I. Doi, Introduction to the Hadith (A.S. Nordeen, 2001),
page 15.
Back to My Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.
Rebuttals to Silas' Articles section.
Contradictions and History of Corruption in the Bible.
Questions about Jesus that trinitarian Christians don't have logical answers for.
What parts of the Bible do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth? and Why?
"Allah" was GOD Almighty's original Name in the Bible according to the Hebrew and Aramaic sources.
Scientific Miracles in Islam and the Noble Quran.
Most of the Bible's books and gospels were written by mysterious people!
Jesus mentioned Muhammad by the name in the Bible.
Did Isaiah 53 really prophesies about the crucifixion of Jesus? It supports Islam's claims about Jesus peace be upon him never died on the cross. I also addressed John 19:36-37 from the Bible and proved that Jesus never got crucified, since GOD Almighty promised that he will protect Jesus' body and not let even a single bone be broken. My question to all Christians is: How in the world is it possible for the feet to get nailed on the cross without any penetration to the bones by the nails, hence breaking part of the feet's bones?! I also added refutations to Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, Zechariah 12:10 and Psalm 34:20, which supposedly prove the Christians' belief about Jesus crucifixion. I proved that this dogma has no truth what so ever and exposed the wrong Trinitarian English translation of Zechariah 12:10.