4 replies to this topic

[Abu Lulu]

Sahih Muslim, Book 38, Number 6690: Abu Tufail reported that there was a dispute between Hudhaifa and one from the people of Aqaba as it happens amongst people. He said: I adjure you by Allah to tell me as to how many people from Aqaba were. The people said to him (Hudhaifa) to inform him as he had asked. We have been informed that they were fourteen and If you are to be counted amongst them, then they would be fifteen and I state by Allah that twelve amongst them were the enemies of Allah and of His Messenger (may peace be upon him) in this world. The rest of the three put forward this excuse: We did not hear the announcement of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and we were not aware of the intention of the people as he (the Holy Prophet) had been in the hot atmosphere. He (the Holy Prophet) then said: The water is small in quantity (at the next station). So nobody should go ahead of me, but he found people who had gone ahead of him and he cursed them on that day.

وأما حديث حذيفة فساقط لأنه من طريق الوليد بن جميع وهو هالك ولا نراه يعلم من وضع الحديث فإنه قد روى أخبارا فيها أن أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان وطلحة وسعد بن أبي وقاص رضي الله عنهم أرادوا قتل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وإلقاءه من العقبة في تبوك وهذا هو الكذب الموضوع

Ibn Hazm says: "Hudaifah's hadeeth is false, because it is narrated through Walid Ibn Jumai – he is unreliable – it seems he doesn’t know who fabricated the hadith, because he narrated many reports in which state that Aboo Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan, Talha, and Sa’d ibn Abi Waqas, attempted to murder the Holy Prophet (saw), by pushing him over from Al-Aqabah during Tabuk. This is a fabricated lie". Source

Walid ibn Jumai has been declared Thiqah by many great Sunni-scholars and many have narrated from him, even Bukhari en Muslim. So this foolish "refutation" of ibn Hazm is ridiculous! The narrations of Walid ibn Jumai have to be accepted, so the secret of who tried to murder the prophet is revealed!

Interestingly; Umar revealed his true self (of being one of the hypocrites!):

وحذيفة أحد أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم الأربعة عشر النجباء، كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أسر إليه أسماء المنافقين، وحفظ

عنه الفتن التي تكون بين يدي الساعة، وناشده عمر بالله: أنا من المنافقين اللهم لا، ولا أزكى أحداً بعدك

Huzaifah is one of the 14 noble companions of the Messenger of Allah (صلی الله و علیه و آله وسلم), the Messenger of Allah (صلی الله و علیه و آله وسلم) revealed to him the names of Munafiqeen, and protected him from the difficulties of the Hour, and Umar was swearing him by Allah: "Am I among these Munafiqeen?“, in which he Huzaifah replied " By Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì No!, I will never tell anyone after you". Source & Source

Why would Umar ask this if he knew he wasn't at Aqabah? Why would Umar ask this if he knows that he is a good pious Muslim?

One might say: But Hudhaifa replied in the negative to Umar. This tells us that Umar wasn't one of the hypocrites?
Answer: The messenger of Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì revealed their names to Hudaifa and Ammar (r.h) and told them that they wanted to kill him (saw) and told them to pretend so as if you don't know them. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol 4, page 181/182)

Discuss!

(http://www.revisitingthesalaf.com/2012/02/companions-attempt-to-kill-prophet.html)

Edited by Al-Muntadhar, 12 July 2012 - 03:30 PM.

[ImamAliLover]

A small note, i had trouble finding al-Walid bin Juma'i anywhere in Bukhari and i only found him once in Muslim (which is was first hadith)
?

[Dagga]

Then how is he 'thiqah'

[ImamAliLover]

Huh, i did a bit more digging into this and found this very interesting bit in Mizan al-'Itidal:
http://snag.gy/BlHiH.jpg

If Abu Zur'ah, ibn Ma'een, and Abu Hatim were ok with him, then how can there be a question about his reliability?

Islam-QA also says that ibn Hazm made a mistake here:
أخطأ ابن حزم رحمه الله في وصف الوليد بالهلاك .
http://www.islam-qa.com/ar/ref/131386

However i do see some other problems with using this as a strong evidence.
Firstly, the hadith doesn't clearly say that 'Umar was one of those involved. He could have been interesed to know (despite not being there) just as we're very interested to know, despite us not being there.

i think for there to be a strong evidence, one would have to find a sahih chain that says that Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, etc were there, or go through the "many reports in which state that Aboo Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan, Talha, and Sa’d ibn Abi Waqas, attempted to murder the Holy Prophet (saw), by pushing him over from Al-Aqabah during Tabuk" and see if any have authentic chains and i would be surprised if there were any.

Or it would have to be proven that Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthmaan, Talha, and Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas were all at 'Aqaba because if only 3 of the fifteen weren't munafiqeen then two of these five logically must of been munafiqeen, if my understanding of this hadith is correct.

But Allah(swt) knows best

Edited by ImamAliLover, 13 July 2012 - 11:34 AM.

[Abu Lulu]

Firstly, the hadith doesn't clearly say that 'Umar was one of those involved. He could have been interesed to know (despite not being there) just as we're very interested to know, despite us not being there.

if umar was only interested then he would've said: "who are those munafiqeen?"
but instead, with his dumb head, he said: AM I one if those munafiqeen?" even swearing by Allah.

i think for there to be a strong evidence, one would have to find a sahih chain that says that Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, etc were there, or go through the "many reports in which state that Aboo Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan, Talha, and Sa’d ibn Abi Waqas, attempted to murder the Holy Prophet (saw), by pushing him over from Al-Aqabah during Tabuk" and see if any have authentic chains and i would be surprised if there were any.

ibn hazm said that walid ibn jumai reported many narrations that those munafiqeen were so and so.
many sunni-scholars, including ibn sa'd, dhahabi, ibn mo'een said that walid ibn jumai is thiqah.
its enough proof. however to find these narrations, it's likely impossible. its like waiting on a cow to dump gold.
but ibn hazm clearly stated that there were.

Or it would have to be proven that Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthmaan, Talha, and Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas were all at 'Aqaba because if only 3 of the fifteen weren't munafiqeen then two of these five logically must of been munafiqeen, if my understanding of this hadith is correct.

your understanding is correct.