True Stories or Forgeries?
The Killing of Abu 'Afak
and Asma' bint Marwan?
Hesham
Azmy
(The reason why I copied this article from Hesham Azmy to my
section is to permanently preserve it from ever being lost)
Introduction
The vulgar Christian missionary, Silas, has accused Prophet Muhammad(P)
of being responsible for the killing
Abu 'Afak and
'Asma bint Marwan. The implications of these charges are that he(P)
"stiffles"
criticism by murdering his opponents. In this paper, insha'allāh, we
are going to refute these false charges against the Holy Prophet(P),
wa Allah-ul-Mustaan.
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?
Our answer is 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?
Our answer is that we tend to believe it.
This is exactly what Muslim scholars require in any report to be
valid and its attribution to God's Messenger(P)
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 Hadīth.
Can we then accept the report as valid?
Not yet. After we had verified 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 Kathīr states that
Authentic Hadith is the transmitted hadīth 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.[1]
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 the Muslims have done. The Western
Orientalist Bernard Lewis notes that
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.[2]
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.
Imām 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 hadīth 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 hadīth, Hafiz Zayn-ūd-Dīn of Irāq, says about the
biographies as follows:
The student should know that the biographies contain all kinds of
reports, both true and false.
We believe that this should make us depend only upon
reliable
sources that have been properly authenticated by Muslim specialists
in the Hadith sciences.
The Killing of Abu 'Afak: Where is The Isnād?
According to Ibn Sa'd and Ibn Ishāq, Abu 'Afak was a 120 years old
Jewish man who had abused the Prophet(P)
verbally, so the latter launched a raid under the command of Salīm
Ibn 'Umaīr to kill him. We do know that Ibn Ishāq lived in the 2nd
half of the 2nd century after Hijra, as well as Al-Waqīdī 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 Ishāq or Al-Waqīdī must be
examined and verified. So, our legitimate question is: where is the
isnād
(i.e., chain of reporters)?
Unfortunately, references of the Sīrah do not provide such
information. Actually, we are told that this story has no isnād
at all; neither Ibn Ishāq (or his disciple Ibn Hīsham) nor
Al-Waqīdī (or his disciple Ibn Sa'd) had provided such a thing! In
this case, the story is rated by hadīth scholars as "...of
no basis", indicating that it has reached the
lowest degree of criticism
regarding its isnād. This is in fact a proper scientific position
because we cannot accept such a problematic story without evidence.
In brief, we have no commitment to accept such a baseless story -
according to scientific criteria of hadīth criticism - which
strangely had appeared in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after
Hijra. We are therefore obliged to
reject
the story of the killing of Abu 'Afak by Salīm Ibn 'Umaīr at the
Prophets command.
The Killing of Asma': True Story or Forgery?
Basically the
charge is that the Prophet(P)
had ordered the killing of Asma' when she insulted him with her
poetry. As it is usually the case where the history of Islam and the
character of the Prophet(P)
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[3]
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 isnād (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.[4]
It is also reported by Ibn al-Gawzi in Al-'Ilal[5]
and is listed among other flawed reports.
So according to its isnād, the report is forged - because one
of its reporters is notorious for fabricating hadīth. Hence, such a
story is rejected and is better off being put into the trash can.
Prophetic Attitude Toward Women and Old Men in War
Here we are going to discuss the
authentic
Sunnah of the Holy Prophet(P)
regarding women and old men in war. No baseless or forged reports
are allowed here; we will only display authentic reports.
In brief, the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet(P)
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 Gods Apostle.[6]
The Prophet(P)
refused to kill a woman who did intentionally try to poison
him, but the Christian missionaries, by using a fabricated story,
wants us to believe that he ordered the killing of a woman who only
abused him verbally. (note:
in Islam a women can only be put to death if she commited murder as
crime, for murder is (both for men and women) death punishment in
islam),
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.[7]
Due to this prohibition, scholars of Abu Hanīfahs madhāb
(school of thought) have stated that apostate women are not to be
killed because the Prophet(P)
forbade the killing of women, and since the prohibition is general
it includes apostate women.[8]
Even after the Prophet's demise, his Sunnah remain 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."[9]
Conclusion
The Western Orientalist Bernard Lewis notes that
From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false
testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate
science for criticizing tradition.[10]
We have utilized their scientific methodology to expose the false
narratives attributed to the Prophet(P)
about the alleged killing of Abu 'Afak and Asma' bint Marwan.
Examination of the isnād (i.e., chain of reports) has
revealed the unreliability of both stories. Also, an examination of
the matn (i.e., text) has revealed their inevitable
contradiction with vigorously authentic traditions and established
Islamic principles. 'Abdūr Rahmān 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.[11]
But critics may have an objection: if these stories are false, then
why they are mentioned in Islamic references in the first place? In
response, we have earlier
shown the position of learned Muslim scholars toward these
references in the biographies, whose authors used to relate hundreds
of reports without checking them or relying on serious criticism.
These particular stories even proved their unscientific methodology
because they are reported without isnād at all. This is extremely
irregular of any respectable scholar. Ibn Jarīr At-Tabārī
(224-310 A.H.) in his encyclopedic book of history
Tarikh Al-Umam wa Al-Mulūk
did not give mention of these stories at all despite the fact that
he had mentioned far less significant reports in his work.
Hence, based on the empirical evidence, we can therefore conclude
that the so-called "killing" of Abu 'Afak and Asma' bint Marwan
respectively are inherently false and had never happened. This
certainly throws the spanner into the works of the missionary's
conclusions, which is based upon nothing but hatred, paranoia and
xenophobia towards the elect Apostle of God, Muhammad(P).
And Allāh knows best.
See also:
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/index.php/articles/muhammadp-the-lies
References
[1]
Ibn Kathīr,
Al-Ba'ith Al-Hadīth
(Maktabat-us-Sunnah, Cairo, Egypt), p. 28
[2]
Bernard Lewis,
Islam In History
(Open Court Publishing, 1993), pp.104-105
[3]
Ibn Sa'd,
Kitab At-Tabaqat Al-Kabir,
Vol. 1, pp. 27-28
[4]
Ibn 'Adiyy,
Al-Kamel,
Vol. 6, p. 145
[5]
Ibn al-Gawzi,
Al-'Ilal,
Vol. 1, p. 279
[6]
Sahih al-Bukhārī,
Vol. 3, Bk. 47, No. 786
[7]
Ibid.,
Vol. 4, Bk. 52, No. 257 & 258. Also see
Mutta Malik,
Book 21, Section 3, Number 9
[8]
Al-Hasafky,
Sharh Ad-Durr-el-Mukhtar,
Volume 1, p. 483
[9]
Mutta Malik,
Book 21, Section 3, Number 10
[10]
Bernard Lewis,
Op. Cit.,
pp.104-105
[11]
'Abdūr Rahmān I. Doi,
Introduction to the Hadith
(A.S. Nordeen, 2001), p. 15