Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Abu Tufayl

The 3 Caliphs' Attack On The Messenger [Sawa]

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(bismillah)

صلى الله على محمد وآله

 

Recently, I came across a fascinating article regarding the hypocrites at Uqba that attempted to kill the Holy Prophet [sawa] after Tabuk. The full article can be read here (click!). I will here, however, provide a summarized version of its points with some extra points here.

 

The great companion Huthayfa b. al-Yaman (d. 37 AH), who accompanied the Prophet [sawa] when he was attacked by these people at Uqba, was informed by the Prophet [sawa] of who these hypocrites were and then announced to everyone else that there were a number (12 ~ 14) hypocrites amongst them.  This narration is saheeh and included in Sahih Muslim. This incident is famous and well accepted by everyone.

 

Now, Ibn Hazim – an Andalusian Sunni hadith scholar of the 5th century H – comments on the incident and calls it a fabricated lie. He points to the one of the narrators – Walid b. Abdullah b. Jumay` - and accuses him of fabricating this hadith because he narrates reports accusing Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Talha, and Sa`d b. Abi Waqas of wanting to kill the Prophet [sawa] at Uqba after Tabuk.

 

So the events are one and the same and he is solely accusing this narrator of fabricating because of the content of what he is narrating and it is completely irreconcilable with their doctrine and historical point of view. Also note that Ibn Hazim specifying fabrication to this particular narrator – on a content basis (istiqraa’) – means that the remainder of the chain and its narrators is correct.

 

Ibn Hazim is in fact very late compared to many other narrator critics. In fact, most of the scholars of narrator praise and criticism give this narrator Walid b. Abdullah b. Jumay` strong authentication:

 

Yaha b. Mu`ayn (d. 233 AH) – reliable, trustworthy

Abu Hatim al-Razi (d. 277 AH) – righteous hadith

Abu Dawud (d. 275) & Ahmad b. Hanbal (d. 241 AH) – there are no problems with him

 

I think the problem presented to the opponents here is clear. It would give legitimacy to the narration as previously existing with the names of companions who according to them were the best of the best and the heavy weights. The narration in the books today does not include the names. This is not surprising as the narrators after Walid b. Jumay` and/or the compilers themselves would have censored the names and the content – a well known and apparent habit of theirs. It is also good to note that the person Walid b. Jumay` is narrating from the last companion to die, Abu al-Tufayl [ra], a hardcore shi’i rafidhi (you can see his article here (click!)

 

Ibn Hajr tries to rescue the situation (and this narrator) by saying, he’s not thiqa (having good memory AND honesty), rather he was just sadooq (honest) and had awhaam (an imagination) and then goes to accuse him of tashayyu`. He then brings forward a narration where Umar asks Huthayfa if he is from the munafiqeen and Huthayfa replies in the negative. The article writer presents two points here. First,  Umar asking such a thing is strange and suspicious. He himself should be aware if he was from the assailants at Uqba or not. So this is not some sort of moment of grand taqwa for Ibn al-Khattab.

 

The second point, the article writing claims, is that Huthayfa did taqiyya – he hid the truth from Umar to spare himself. Now, at first glance, this argument seems extremely farfetched. But it in fact seems be on spot especially given what is presented following this argument:

 

He presents a narration where Uthman summons Huthayfa, while Ibn Mas`ud is with him,  interrogating Huthayfa about the rumors of him accusing him (Uthman) about “such and such” [there we go again with the censoring]. Huthayfa denies it and then leaves. Ibn Mas`ud then asks him “Why did you deny saying that when I heard you saying these myself!?” Huthayfa replies saying, essentially, I hid the truth to spare myself and my deen (taqiyya).

 

All of the narrations about these incidents and events are saheeh by their isnad. Refer back to the original article and their scans to see it. You can also check each narrator yourself.

 

Finally, another event brought forward is an incident where an early tabi` (possibly young companion, Shurayq) is sitting with Huthayfa in the masjid when Abdullah b. Mas`ud and Abu Musa al-Ash`ari walks in and he says “one of these two is a hypocrite.” Then Huthayfa goes on to praise Ibn Mas`ud very highly. Essentially clarifying – Abu Musa al-Ash`ari is the munafiq [hypocrite].

 

Sunni scholars tried to “save” the situation here by saying things like “Oh Huthayfa was just mad when he said this” – which is a saying without proof and is far from what is apparent. al-Thahabi, who is someone known to be extremely hostile to Shias and Shiism, tries to accuse al-A`mash in the chain because he has some tashayyu` in him and that Shias tend to dislike Abu Musa.

 

Problem is that al-A`mash is EXTREMELY thiqa and relied upon by the Sunnis. He narrates about 370 times in Bukhari and Muslim’s saheeh. And they’ve never really made a fuss about his slight tashayyu` (khafeef tashayyu`) ever before and in fact most ignored it as anything of any real mention. Next, tadlees/irsal can’t be used as the excuse here either. The narrator al-A`mash is narrating from (Shurayq/Abu Waa’il) is from among his main teachers and al-A`mash `an Shurayq appears many times in the saheehayn AND several times with explicit hearing (simaa`) where he says “I heard Shurayq say” and the like. Shurayq is himself a giant thiqa narrator who was born during the Prophet [sawa]’s life (1 AH).

 

Conclusion: No matter how you look at it, the probability of this hadith being reliable is very high, as Walid b. `Abdullah b. Jumay` was considered thiqa by the earliest rijal scholars, and was only weakened by Ibn Hazim for narrating this hadith. We cannot establish someone's weakness for the sole reason that he narrates a hadith some don't like. The hadith does not contradict the Qur'an or the Sunna in any way, and no doubts were placed on the transmitters' honesty and character. The hadith merely identifies the previously anonymous hypocrites that attacked the Prophet.

 

Through this charge, and through other evidences that we have used to expose the malicious intentions of the 3 Caliphs, we can make a good case against Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. If they indeed tried to kill the Prophet, then this is the worst of their sins, and no Muslims from any sect should try to exonerate them. Put this beside the many other crimes they have committed against the Ahl al-Bayt and the sahaba, and you'll find that these guys were all bad apples.

 

All deficiencies are mine and all truth is from Allah. May He [awj] forgive us and accept efforts for His cause. Ameen.

 

في أمان الله

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a article further extracting this event. Although it isnt fully complete, very important points + evidences are made.

 

Wa Salaam

 

http://valiasr-aj-english.weebly.com/uploads/7/5/6/8/7568784/is_it_true_that_umar_abu_bakr_uthman_and_others_were_involved_in_the_unsuccessful_assassination_plot_of_the_prophet_pbuh__hf.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

al-Majalisi narrates in Bihar:

 

 قصص الأنبياء: الصدوق، عن أبيه، عن سعد، عن إبراهيم بن مهزيار، عن أخيه علي، عن النضر، عن موسى بن بكر قال: قال بعض أصحابنا لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام علم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله أسماء المنافقين؟ فقال: لا، ولكن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله لما كان في غزوة تبوك كان يسير على ناقته والناس أمامه، فلما انتهى إلى العقبة وقد جلس عليها أربعة عشر رجلا، ستة من قريش، وثمانية من أفناء الناس - أو على عكس هذا - (3) فأتاه جبرئيل عليه السلام فقال: إن فلانا وفلانا وفلانا فقد قعدوا (4) لك على العقبة لينفروا ناقتك، فناداهم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله: يا فلان ويا فلان ويا فلان أنتم القعود لتنفروا ناقتي؟ وكان حذيفة خلفه فلحق (5) بهم فقال: يا حذيفة سمعت؟ قال: نعم قال: اكتم

 

If someone else would be so kind as to translate it, I don't have time at this moment. As a side note, the chain is strong according to me and dependable.

 

في أمان الله

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been discussed on here before, and I think Nader also covered it in his blog. Needless to say shias accept it and Sunnis reject it.

 

All of the narrations about these incidents and events are saheeh by their isnad. Refer back to the original article and their scans to see it. You can also check each narrator yourself.

 

 

 And when you have narrators from Sahih bukhari and Muslim should sunnis not accept it?

 

Thanks Dar for bringing up a great article with scans and analysis and conclusion.

 

Conclusion: No matter how you look at it, the probability of this hadith being reliable is very high, as Walid b. `Abdullah b. Jumay` was considered thiqa by the earliest rijal scholars, and was only weakened by Ibn Hazim for narrating this hadith. We cannot establish someone's weakness for the sole reason that he narrates a hadith some don't like. The hadith does not contradict the Qur'an or the Sunna in any way, and no doubts were placed on the transmitters' honesty and character. The hadith merely identifies the previously anonymous hypocrites that attacked the Prophet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been discussed on here before, and I think Nader also covered it in his blog. Needless to say shias accept it and Sunnis reject it.

 

Sunnis may reject it, Wahabis may kill Shias for this, but some are there to see the light, as Imam Ali (as) stated there is enough light for one to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

al-Majalisi narrates in Bihar:

 

 قصص الأنبياء: الصدوق، عن أبيه، عن سعد، عن إبراهيم بن مهزيار، عن أخيه علي، عن النضر، عن موسى بن بكر قال: قال بعض أصحابنا لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام علم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله أسماء المنافقين؟ فقال: لا، ولكن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله لما كان في غزوة تبوك كان يسير على ناقته والناس أمامه، فلما انتهى إلى العقبة وقد جلس عليها أربعة عشر رجلا، ستة من قريش، وثمانية من أفناء الناس - أو على عكس هذا - (3) فأتاه جبرئيل عليه السلام فقال: إن فلانا وفلانا وفلانا فقد قعدوا (4) لك على العقبة لينفروا ناقتك، فناداهم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله: يا فلان ويا فلان ويا فلان أنتم القعود لتنفروا ناقتي؟ وكان حذيفة خلفه فلحق (5) بهم فقال: يا حذيفة سمعت؟ قال: نعم قال: اكتم

 

If someone else would be so kind as to translate it, I don't have time at this moment. As a side note, the chain is strong according to me and dependable.

 

في أمان الله

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركته

Stories of the Prophets عليهم السلام: al-Saduq قدس سره; from His Father (`Ali b. Babawayh al-Qummi) قدس سره; from Sa`ad; from Ibraheem b. Mahziyar; from His Brother, `Ali b. Mahziyar; from al-Nadr; from Musa b. Bakr, he said: Some of our companions said to Abi `AbdAllah عليه السلام: "Did the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله know the names of the hypocrites?" So he said: "No, however, when the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله was in the campaign of Tabbuk, he was riding on a camel, with a group leading in front of him. So when he reached al-`Aqabah and sat there, 14 men, 6 from Quraysh, and 8 from other people - or vis versa - So Jibra'eel عليه السلام came to Him صلى الله عليه وآله and said: 'Verily so-and-so, and so-and-so, and so-and-so have laid in wait for you in al-`Aqabah to frighten your she-camel.' So the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله called to them saying: 'Oh so-and-so! Oh so-and-so! Oh so-and-so! Have you laid in wait to frighten my she-camel?' Hudhayfah, was behind Him صلى الله عليه وآله, he caught up to them. So he said: 'Oh Hudhayfah, did you hear?' He said: 'Yes.' He said: 'Keep this secret.'"

 

Small note if you were confused like me when read the she-camel being scared part, scaring the she-camel in this mountain pass would've caused it to go mad, and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله to be thrown off and fall to his death.

 

Mind any translation errors.

والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركته

Edited by al-`Ajal Ya Imaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who don't know the story, here is the intro from the website brother Dar mentioned:

 

The expedition of Tabuk is indeed a remarkable moment in Islamic history for numerous reasons. It was on this memorable occasion the Prophet (saw) announced the famous Hadeeth Al-Manzila in which He said, "O Alee! Your position unto me is like how Haroon was to Musa, except there is no Prophet after me." This was the only campaign in which Imam Alee (a.s) did not participate. This was not because he did not want to participate, rather it was the decision of the Prophet (saw) to leave him behind in Madinah so he could maintain the law and prevent the opportunist 'hypocrites' seizing power while the army was away. Roman leader Heraclius, planned to attack the holy city of Madinah. On the basis of these reports, preparations had been made in order to stop the advancing army from entering into the Islamic state. Unlike previous wars that the Muslims fought which were inside the country, this one they faced was from an external opponent. When the army had departed Madinah and reached Tabuk, they settled there for numerous nights. After a long wait, there was no trace of an advancing Roman army. When the Prophet (saw) was satisfied that there was no sign of the enemy, he (saw) ordered the men to return to Madinah. When they reached Uqbah they thought that the passage through the hills was tortuous and difficult. If the animals became restless, there was a likelihood of them falling into the ravines. The Prophet (saw) announced that no one should take that route until his camel goes. But a group of twelve hypocrites conspired that they will disturb the Prophet’s (saw) camel to cause an accident. Hudhayfah ibn Al-Yaman was holding the front ropes of the Prophet (saw) camel while Ammar ibn Yasir was at the back. All of a sudden they had been confronted with twelve riders, with faces covered, proceeding towards the ravine. Hudhayfah pointed this out to the Prophet (saw), and he reprimanded the group. Hudhayfah and Ammar pushed back the masked men. The Prophet (saw) asked Hudhayfah who these persons were. He expressed his ignorance. The Prophet (saw) said that they were the hypocrites and will ever remain so. Then the Prophet (saw) told the names of all the twelve culprits to Hudhayfah and asked him to keep the information a secret. But despite this being a secret, the information was revealed to some people.
 
 يَحْلِفُونَ بِاللَّهِ مَا قَالُواْ وَلَقَدْ قَالُواْ كَلِمَةَ الْكُفْرِ وَكَفَرُواْ بَعْدَ إِسْلَـمِهِمْ وَهَمُّواْ بِمَا لَمْ يَنَالُواْ وَمَا نَقَمُواْ إِلاَ أَنْ أَغْنَاهُمُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ فَإِن يَتُوبُواْ يَكُ خَيْراً لَّهُمْ وَإِن يَتَوَلَّوْا يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللَّهُ عَذَابًا أَلِيمًا فِى الدُّنْيَا وَالاٌّخِرَةِ وَمَا لَهُمْ فِى الاٌّرْضِ مِن وَلِيٍّ وَلاَ نَصِيرٍ

They swear by Allah that they said nothing (bad), but really they said the word of disbelief, and they disbelieved after accepting Islam, and they resolved that (plot) which they were unable to carry out, and they could not find any cause to do so except that Allah and His Messenger had enriched them of His bounty. If then they repent, it will be better for them, but if they turn away;Allah will punish them with a painful torment in this worldly life and in the Hereafter. And there is none for them on earth as a protector or a helper.

Holy Qur'aan (9.74)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

No. That is a different website. This is not Nader's blog, this blog is better, in my opinion. The two blogs are just using the same background/template...

 

في أمان الله

 

Yes it's not his blog. The author of this blog is a super rafidhi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A refutation is here

http://twelvershia.net/2013/04/15/response-to-assassination-attempt-on-the-prophet-saw/

Whether you choose to accept that Abu Bakr and the rest were involved will more often than not depend on whether you are a shia or sunni, rather than the authenticity of the reports and event.

Edited by Vigilare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...