Post by Zameel on Dec 10, 2016 7:47:37 GMT
Abu Layth and the Ḥadīth on Magic Performed on the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)
Abu Layth [1] recently said: “The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) did not have magic done on him. I refuse to accept this. I find it nonsensical. I find it an insult to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). And I find it an insult to Islam to accept these kinds of things. Allah says in the Qur’an that this was the da‘wah of the Kuffār, that they stated that this man, magic has been done on him. And Allah refuted them, and rebuked them. What would be the purpose of that if it was possible to have magic done on him? Magic doesn’t exist like that. It’s just an illusion at best. It has no reality. And I know there is a hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari, and the hadith has conflicting narrations…I find this incident blasphemous, and I’m surprised at the majority of the scholars who defend this. The narrations in Bukhari are very insulting…They state that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) became impotent, that he became forgetful, he became clumsy…Muslims want to defend at the cost of one sanad, of a chain, they’re prepared to blaspheme against the honour of the Messenger of Allah, they’re prepared to insult him; in their alleged love of the chain of one hadith…This narration is not correct. It goes against the sound, established principles of Islam. I don’t care if it’s in Bukhari, it’s not the first hadith in Bukhari that is problematic…I find it shocking that people out of their love for isnad…they’re even prepared to throw the honour of the Messenger under the bus… We’ll even compromise the honour of the Messenger of Allah so long as we can show this commitment to this one isnad.”
The obvious meaning of his statement is that he believes the ḥadīth stating the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was affected by magic is narrated via only one single chain (isnād).
We will demonstrate below that this is false, and how Abu Layth effectively accuses the near-consensus of classical Sunnī scholarship of “blasphemy” against the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). Some of Abu Layth’s claims will then be addressed in light of what the scholars of the past have mentioned.
Narrations
The ḥadīth stating that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was affected by magic is narrated from ‘Ā’ishah, Zayd ibn Arqam, Anas and Ibn ‘Abbās (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum); as well as through some mursal reports.
1. ‘Ā’ishah
Hishām ibn ‘Urwah reported this ḥadīth from his father, ‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, who reports it from his aunt, ‘Ā’ishah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā). Several of the students of Hishām narrated it from him. Those who narrated from him in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī alone are: ‘Īsā ibn Yūnus, Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd al-Qaṭṭān, Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah, Abū Ḍamrah Anas ibn ‘Iyāḍ, Abū Usāmah Ḥammād ibn Usāmah and al-Layth ibn Sa‘d. In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, ‘Abdullāh ibn Numayr is also mentioned as narrating this ḥadīth from Hishām. Naturally, some of these transmissions from Hishām are found in other collections besides Bukhārī and Muslim, like Musnad Aḥmad, Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah and Sunan Ibn Mājah.
In the transmission of Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd al-Qaṭṭān, he said: “Hishām narrated to us: My father narrated to me from ‘Ā’ishah”, explicitly mentioning that Hishām received this directly from his father without any intermediary. Hence, the question over the alleged tadlīs of Hishām does not arise in this report. The full version of this particular version in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is as follows:
This is a chain and narration at the highest level of authenticity. ‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr (23 – 94 H), the nephew of ‘Ā’ishah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā), is regarded as one of the most important inheritors of the knowledge of ‘Ā’ishah, and the most reliable transmitters from her, along with Qāsim ibn Muḥammad and ‘Amra bint ‘Abd al-Raḥmān. Hishām (61 – 146 H), ‘Urwah’s son, was also a learned imām, who was a reliable transmitter of the knowledge of his father. There is no doubt over the authenticity of this chain, which is why both al-Bukhārī and Muslim include it in their collections. The chain Hishām from ‘Urwah from ‘A’ishah is in fact regarded as one of the strongest chains of transmission, and is one Imām Mālik used frequently in his Muwaṭṭa’, Hishām being a direct teacher of Mālik. While this is the strongest chain for this ḥadīth, the narration does not hinge on Hishām, nor on ‘Urwah, nor even on ‘A’ishah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā), as will be demonstrated below.
In the narration of Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah as recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, he mentions that before he received this report from Hishām, he first heard it from Ibn Jurayj, the great imām of Makkah, who told him that: “The family of ‘Urwah narrated to me from ‘Urwah…” Ibn Ḥajar writes that the apparent wording of this suggests that others apart from Hishām narrated it from ‘Urwah. (Fatḥ al-Bārī, 10:278) Other children of ‘Urwah besides Hishām were also known to narrate from him. The narration is also found as an authentic mursal report from ‘Urwah with a different chain: from al-Zuhrī from ‘Urwah. (Muṣannaf ‘Abd al-Razzāq, 11:14)
[There is another chain leading up to ‘Ā’ishah from her well-known student ‘Amrah, as reported by al-Bayhaqī in his Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah (7:92). However, there appears to be strong weakness in this chain of narration.]
In short, there can be no doubt over the accuracy of this report from ‘Ā’ishah. ‘Ā’ishah‘s report is the only one that appears in Bukhārī, but the narrations of Bukhārī are not its only source. Most of the accounts in Bukhārī are lengthy, describing how the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was informed of the magic, who it was that performed it, where the materials used were kept, how they were removed and his eventual recovery from its effects. But none of these accounts in Bukhārī mention explicitly that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) became “impotent” or “forgetful” or “clumsy” as Abu Layth claimed about the narrations of Bukhārī. They merely mention that he was affected by the magic, and “it was made to appear to him that he came to his wives although he had not” or “it was made to appear to him that he did something although he did not.” There is no explicit mention that he was not able to do something or he became forgetful.
2. Zayd ibn Arqam
Ibn Abī Shaybah said:
Al-‘Iraqi said of this report: “Al-Nasa’ī narrated it with a ṣaḥīḥ chain from Zayd ibn Arqam.” (Itḥāf al-Sādat al-Muttaqīn, 7:136).
3. Anas
Al-Ṭabarānī (260 – 360) reports:
4. Ibn ‘Abbas
Al-Bayhaqī narrated this incident from Ibn ‘Abbās (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhumā) in Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah (6:248) from Abū Ṣāliḥ from him, as well as Ibn Sa‘d from al-Ḍaḥḥāk from him (Ṭabaqāt Ibn Sa‘d, 2:177). However, both chains are severely weak. Al-Tha‘labī attributes the narration to Ibn ‘Abbās in his Tafsīr (10:338), and Ibn Mardawayh also narrated it from Ibn ‘Abbās via ‘Ikrimah as mentioned in al-Durr al-Manthūr (15:794), although the full chain is not available.
Mursal Reports
5. Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyib and ‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr
‘Abd al-Razzāq al-Ṣan‘ānī narrated through his accepted chain of: Ma‘mar ibn Rāshid (95 – 153 H) from Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī (58 – 124) from both Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyib (15 – 94) (who was regarded by some as the greatest of the Tābi‘īn of his era) and ‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr that the Jews of Banū Zurayq performed magic on the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and put it in a well, which had an effect on his vision. Allāh showed him what they did, so he sent someone to the well and extracted the knots on which the magic was performed. Zuhrī said: “The Prophet (ṣallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) would say according to what reached us: ‘The Jews of Banū Zurayq performed magic on me.’” (Muṣannaf ‘Abd al-Razzāq, 11:14)
Ibn Sa‘d mentions this report from al-Zuhrī with a different chain (Ṭabaqāt Ibn Sa‘d, 2:177).
6. Yaḥyā ibn Ya‘mar
‘Abd al-Razzāq also narrated it through the reliable chain of Ma‘mar from ‘Aṭā’ al-Khurāsānī (50 – 135) from the great Tābi‘ī, Yaḥyā ibn Ya‘mar (d. before 90 H). (Muṣannaf ‘Abd al-Razzāq, 11:14)
-----------------
Thus, the fact that magic was performed on the Prophet (ṣallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), and that it had an effect on him, is found in several corroborating reports, which cannot be described as a fabrication or invention without questioning the integrity of the entirety of Sunnī scholarship and the imāms of the Salaf who transmitted knowledge to us. If it was a mistake or error, who is responsible for it? It cannot be put down to one or two individuals, as the narration does not depend on only one or two individuals in any one generation. The only alternative is to say multiple personalities all made the same mistake in transmission and all made the same factual error, which is obviously absurd.
And apart from the multiple sources of the incident, it has been accepted by the near-consensus of Sunnī scholarship. None of the famous scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah denied that the Prophet (ṣallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was affected by magic, with the exception of Imām Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ who was known to have Mu‘tazilī inclinations (for further evidence, and examples, of his Mu‘tazilī inclinations, see footnotes to Nāẓūrat al-Ḥaqq, p. 208-10). In response to him, ‘Allāmah Ẓafar Aḥmad al-‘Uthmānī says: “I find no sound basis for his claim, since the ḥadīth has been transmitted from several ṣaḥābah, via several authentic routes, with chains whose transmitters are reliable.” (Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, 1:44) It may be said in defence of al-Jaṣṣāṣ that he was not familiar with all of the routes and chains of this incident; whereas the same cannot be said about someone who has been shown the above evidence, and still refuses to accept it. Apart from the many transmissions, the collective acceptance of this ḥadīth by the vast majority of early scholars makes it beyond reproach. This ḥadīth is not amongst the agreed-upon ḥadīths of Bukhārī and Muslim that have been subject to criticism by the scholars of ḥadīth.
In regards to the other objections against the ḥadīth, the responses of the great imāms and scholars of the past are sufficient:
Imām Abū Sulaymān al-Khaṭṭābī (319 – 388), the great Shāfi‘ī muḥaddith, said under the commentary of this ḥadīth:
From the early Mālikī authorities, ‘Abdullāh ibn Wahb mentions the report of the magic performed on the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) in his transmission of the Muwaṭṭa’. (Al-Muḥārabah min al-Muwaṭṭa’, Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, p. 83)
As explained, true magic/sorcery (siḥr) is accomplished by carrying out some rituals known to sorcerers, by which they attract the help of evil jinn or shayāṭīn (devils). This can cause some damage to the person intended by the magic, although there is disagreement over the degree of damage it can cause.
Al-Ghazālī said:
The Qur’ān states that magic also affected the Prophet Mūsā (‘alayhissalām) until it appeared to him that the sticks of the magicians were snakes. (Qur’ān, 20:66) Regarding the verse: “The wrongdoers say: You only follow a man affected by magic” (17:47): There is no proof in what the disbelievers say or what they argue from in order to reject the truth. They would also describe the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) as “eating food and walking in the markets” (Qur’ān, 25:7) as a means to deride him, although this was something factual. The argument of the disbelievers in this verse is only of substance if the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was affected by magic in what he preached and delivered; as in, his preaching is influenced by insanity and magic. Hence, the disbelievers are quoted as saying: “You only follow a man affected by magic,” that is, the magic is influencing what he conveys to you and what you follow him in. But the magic in question was not of this nature. The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is protected from the type of magic or illness that could make him say something incorrect; hence the magic did not, and could not, influence his teachings or what he preached to the people. Merely being affected by magic, just like merely being affected by illness, does not itself entail any effect in what he preaches. It just means he was a human being. The narration says nothing more than his being affected by the magic, making him ill and making him see things and imagine things that were not there for some time. This is also possible from some forms of illness.
The ḥadīth does not say he became forgetful or clumsy, nor does it explicitly say that he became impotent. These are unfavourable readings of Bukhārī. It is authentically narrated from ‘Alī (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) that he said: “When you are narrated a ḥadīth about/from the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), regard it to be that which is most appropriate, most guided and most precautious.” (Sunan Ibn Mājah, 1:15; al-Radd ‘alā Siyar al-Awzā‘ī, p 28-9). In other words, a ḥadīth should be understood favourably and given benefit of the doubt. In contrast, Abu Layth gives it an unfavourable interpretation, and uses that to cast doubt on the whole tradition of Sunnī scholarship, even to the point of implying that the great scholars and imāms of our tradition failed to defend the honour of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)! Can someone who holds such a negative view of our tradition be trusted to present others with authentic information about that very tradition?
[1] For other refutations on Abu Layth, see:
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/533/abu-layth-adith-resembles-people
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/436/reply-abu-layth-joining-excuse
theislamiclens.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/comments-on-classical-islamic-views-on-the-punishment-for-apostasy/
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/497/avoid-abu-layth
Abu Layth [1] recently said: “The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) did not have magic done on him. I refuse to accept this. I find it nonsensical. I find it an insult to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). And I find it an insult to Islam to accept these kinds of things. Allah says in the Qur’an that this was the da‘wah of the Kuffār, that they stated that this man, magic has been done on him. And Allah refuted them, and rebuked them. What would be the purpose of that if it was possible to have magic done on him? Magic doesn’t exist like that. It’s just an illusion at best. It has no reality. And I know there is a hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari, and the hadith has conflicting narrations…I find this incident blasphemous, and I’m surprised at the majority of the scholars who defend this. The narrations in Bukhari are very insulting…They state that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) became impotent, that he became forgetful, he became clumsy…Muslims want to defend at the cost of one sanad, of a chain, they’re prepared to blaspheme against the honour of the Messenger of Allah, they’re prepared to insult him; in their alleged love of the chain of one hadith…This narration is not correct. It goes against the sound, established principles of Islam. I don’t care if it’s in Bukhari, it’s not the first hadith in Bukhari that is problematic…I find it shocking that people out of their love for isnad…they’re even prepared to throw the honour of the Messenger under the bus… We’ll even compromise the honour of the Messenger of Allah so long as we can show this commitment to this one isnad.”
The obvious meaning of his statement is that he believes the ḥadīth stating the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was affected by magic is narrated via only one single chain (isnād).
We will demonstrate below that this is false, and how Abu Layth effectively accuses the near-consensus of classical Sunnī scholarship of “blasphemy” against the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). Some of Abu Layth’s claims will then be addressed in light of what the scholars of the past have mentioned.
Narrations
The ḥadīth stating that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was affected by magic is narrated from ‘Ā’ishah, Zayd ibn Arqam, Anas and Ibn ‘Abbās (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum); as well as through some mursal reports.
1. ‘Ā’ishah
Hishām ibn ‘Urwah reported this ḥadīth from his father, ‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, who reports it from his aunt, ‘Ā’ishah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā). Several of the students of Hishām narrated it from him. Those who narrated from him in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī alone are: ‘Īsā ibn Yūnus, Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd al-Qaṭṭān, Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah, Abū Ḍamrah Anas ibn ‘Iyāḍ, Abū Usāmah Ḥammād ibn Usāmah and al-Layth ibn Sa‘d. In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, ‘Abdullāh ibn Numayr is also mentioned as narrating this ḥadīth from Hishām. Naturally, some of these transmissions from Hishām are found in other collections besides Bukhārī and Muslim, like Musnad Aḥmad, Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah and Sunan Ibn Mājah.
In the transmission of Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd al-Qaṭṭān, he said: “Hishām narrated to us: My father narrated to me from ‘Ā’ishah”, explicitly mentioning that Hishām received this directly from his father without any intermediary. Hence, the question over the alleged tadlīs of Hishām does not arise in this report. The full version of this particular version in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is as follows:
Muḥammad ibn al-Muthannā narrated to me: Yaḥyā [ibn Sa‘īd al-Qaṭṭān] narrated to me: Hishām narrated to us: My father narrated to me from ‘Ā’ishah that magic was done on the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) until it was made to appear to him that he did something, while he had not. (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī)
This is also confirmed in the transmission of al-Layth ibn Sa‘d as recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Al-Layth states: “Hishām wrote to me that he heard it and he preserved it from his father from ‘Ā’ishah that she said: ‘Magic was done on the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) until it was made to appear to him that he did something, while he had not.’”
This is a chain and narration at the highest level of authenticity. ‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr (23 – 94 H), the nephew of ‘Ā’ishah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā), is regarded as one of the most important inheritors of the knowledge of ‘Ā’ishah, and the most reliable transmitters from her, along with Qāsim ibn Muḥammad and ‘Amra bint ‘Abd al-Raḥmān. Hishām (61 – 146 H), ‘Urwah’s son, was also a learned imām, who was a reliable transmitter of the knowledge of his father. There is no doubt over the authenticity of this chain, which is why both al-Bukhārī and Muslim include it in their collections. The chain Hishām from ‘Urwah from ‘A’ishah is in fact regarded as one of the strongest chains of transmission, and is one Imām Mālik used frequently in his Muwaṭṭa’, Hishām being a direct teacher of Mālik. While this is the strongest chain for this ḥadīth, the narration does not hinge on Hishām, nor on ‘Urwah, nor even on ‘A’ishah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā), as will be demonstrated below.
In the narration of Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah as recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, he mentions that before he received this report from Hishām, he first heard it from Ibn Jurayj, the great imām of Makkah, who told him that: “The family of ‘Urwah narrated to me from ‘Urwah…” Ibn Ḥajar writes that the apparent wording of this suggests that others apart from Hishām narrated it from ‘Urwah. (Fatḥ al-Bārī, 10:278) Other children of ‘Urwah besides Hishām were also known to narrate from him. The narration is also found as an authentic mursal report from ‘Urwah with a different chain: from al-Zuhrī from ‘Urwah. (Muṣannaf ‘Abd al-Razzāq, 11:14)
[There is another chain leading up to ‘Ā’ishah from her well-known student ‘Amrah, as reported by al-Bayhaqī in his Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah (7:92). However, there appears to be strong weakness in this chain of narration.]
In short, there can be no doubt over the accuracy of this report from ‘Ā’ishah. ‘Ā’ishah‘s report is the only one that appears in Bukhārī, but the narrations of Bukhārī are not its only source. Most of the accounts in Bukhārī are lengthy, describing how the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was informed of the magic, who it was that performed it, where the materials used were kept, how they were removed and his eventual recovery from its effects. But none of these accounts in Bukhārī mention explicitly that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) became “impotent” or “forgetful” or “clumsy” as Abu Layth claimed about the narrations of Bukhārī. They merely mention that he was affected by the magic, and “it was made to appear to him that he came to his wives although he had not” or “it was made to appear to him that he did something although he did not.” There is no explicit mention that he was not able to do something or he became forgetful.
2. Zayd ibn Arqam
Ibn Abī Shaybah said:
Abū Mu‘āwiyah narrated to us from A‘mash from Yazīd ibn Ḥayyān from Zayd ibn Arqam (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) that he said: A man from the Jews performed magic on the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), so the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) became unwell on account of that for some days. Then Jibrīl came to him and said to him: “So-and-so man amongst the Jews has performed magic on you, and has tied knots over you.” The Messenger of Allah (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) sent ‘Alī on account of this, who extracted it and brought it. Every time a knot was untied he felt some relief. Then the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) stood up as though released from some bonds. The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) thereafter did not mention this to that Jew, nor did [the Jew] ever see this [i.e. registering it or showing displeasure for it] on his face. (Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah, no. 23984; 12:62)The same narration with the same chain is reported by al-Nasa’ī in his Sunan, and Aḥmad in his Musnad (32:16).
Al-‘Iraqi said of this report: “Al-Nasa’ī narrated it with a ṣaḥīḥ chain from Zayd ibn Arqam.” (Itḥāf al-Sādat al-Muttaqīn, 7:136).
3. Anas
Al-Ṭabarānī (260 – 360) reports:
‘Amr ibn Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm ibn al-‘Alā’ ibn Zibrīq al-Ḥimṣī narrated to us: My grandfather, Ibrāhīm ibn al-‘Alā’ narrated to us: ‘Abbād ibn Yūsuf narrated to us from Abū Ja‘far al-Rāzī from al-Rabī‘ ibn Anas from Anas ibn Mālik (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu), he said: Jews performed something over the Messenger of Allāh, intending evil, as a consequence of which he was overcome by strong pain. Jibrīl brought the Mu‘awwidhatayn to him and recited it over him for protection, and said: ‘By Allāh’s name I perform ruqya over you, from everything that can harm you, from every evil eye and envious soul. Allāh cure you.’ Thereafter the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) came out to his companions. (al-Du‘ā, no. 1095; p. 1313)None of the narrators of this chain have any serious criticisms. There is, however, some weakness in the chain, but not to the level that it cannot be used as corroborating evidence.
4. Ibn ‘Abbas
Al-Bayhaqī narrated this incident from Ibn ‘Abbās (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhumā) in Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah (6:248) from Abū Ṣāliḥ from him, as well as Ibn Sa‘d from al-Ḍaḥḥāk from him (Ṭabaqāt Ibn Sa‘d, 2:177). However, both chains are severely weak. Al-Tha‘labī attributes the narration to Ibn ‘Abbās in his Tafsīr (10:338), and Ibn Mardawayh also narrated it from Ibn ‘Abbās via ‘Ikrimah as mentioned in al-Durr al-Manthūr (15:794), although the full chain is not available.
Mursal Reports
5. Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyib and ‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr
‘Abd al-Razzāq al-Ṣan‘ānī narrated through his accepted chain of: Ma‘mar ibn Rāshid (95 – 153 H) from Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī (58 – 124) from both Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyib (15 – 94) (who was regarded by some as the greatest of the Tābi‘īn of his era) and ‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr that the Jews of Banū Zurayq performed magic on the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and put it in a well, which had an effect on his vision. Allāh showed him what they did, so he sent someone to the well and extracted the knots on which the magic was performed. Zuhrī said: “The Prophet (ṣallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) would say according to what reached us: ‘The Jews of Banū Zurayq performed magic on me.’” (Muṣannaf ‘Abd al-Razzāq, 11:14)
Ibn Sa‘d mentions this report from al-Zuhrī with a different chain (Ṭabaqāt Ibn Sa‘d, 2:177).
6. Yaḥyā ibn Ya‘mar
‘Abd al-Razzāq also narrated it through the reliable chain of Ma‘mar from ‘Aṭā’ al-Khurāsānī (50 – 135) from the great Tābi‘ī, Yaḥyā ibn Ya‘mar (d. before 90 H). (Muṣannaf ‘Abd al-Razzāq, 11:14)
-----------------
Thus, the fact that magic was performed on the Prophet (ṣallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), and that it had an effect on him, is found in several corroborating reports, which cannot be described as a fabrication or invention without questioning the integrity of the entirety of Sunnī scholarship and the imāms of the Salaf who transmitted knowledge to us. If it was a mistake or error, who is responsible for it? It cannot be put down to one or two individuals, as the narration does not depend on only one or two individuals in any one generation. The only alternative is to say multiple personalities all made the same mistake in transmission and all made the same factual error, which is obviously absurd.
And apart from the multiple sources of the incident, it has been accepted by the near-consensus of Sunnī scholarship. None of the famous scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah denied that the Prophet (ṣallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was affected by magic, with the exception of Imām Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ who was known to have Mu‘tazilī inclinations (for further evidence, and examples, of his Mu‘tazilī inclinations, see footnotes to Nāẓūrat al-Ḥaqq, p. 208-10). In response to him, ‘Allāmah Ẓafar Aḥmad al-‘Uthmānī says: “I find no sound basis for his claim, since the ḥadīth has been transmitted from several ṣaḥābah, via several authentic routes, with chains whose transmitters are reliable.” (Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, 1:44) It may be said in defence of al-Jaṣṣāṣ that he was not familiar with all of the routes and chains of this incident; whereas the same cannot be said about someone who has been shown the above evidence, and still refuses to accept it. Apart from the many transmissions, the collective acceptance of this ḥadīth by the vast majority of early scholars makes it beyond reproach. This ḥadīth is not amongst the agreed-upon ḥadīths of Bukhārī and Muslim that have been subject to criticism by the scholars of ḥadīth.
In regards to the other objections against the ḥadīth, the responses of the great imāms and scholars of the past are sufficient:
Imām Abū Sulaymān al-Khaṭṭābī (319 – 388), the great Shāfi‘ī muḥaddith, said under the commentary of this ḥadīth:
A group of natural philosophers reject magic and deny it having a reality. Others from the dialectical theologians reject this ḥadīth, saying: “Had it been possible for magic to work on the Prophet of Allāh, in that it had some effect on him, there would be no assurance that it did not affect what was revealed to him from the matters of religion and Sharī‘ah, and that would entail the ummah is misguided.”Imām Abu ‘Alī al-Māzirī (453 – 536 H), a great Mālikī imām, said under the explanation of this ḥadīth in his commentary of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim:
The answer is that magic is established and its reality exists. Most civilisations, whether Arabs, Persians, Indians, and some of the Romans, agree on its reality…Allāh mentions the affair of magic in His Book in the story of Sulaymān…and He ordered that we seek protection from it…Many reports on this have been transmitted from the Prophet (ṣallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and from the Companions (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum), none denying them – on account of their abundance – besides someone who rejects the plainly visible and denies clearly evident knowledge. This is why the jurists derived rulings in their books related to sorcerers, and the punishments that are due on them for the acts they do…Something having no basis or no reality would not have reached this degree of fame and abundance. Negating [the reality] of magic is ignorance, and engaging in refuting one who negates it is futile and excess.
As for their claim that damage is done to prophethood on account of affirming magic and its effect on people and weakness occurring as a result of it, the matter is not as they assume. It is possible for the prophets (upon them peace) to be affected by the temporary states and illnesses which others are affected by, except in regards to what Allāh has granted them protection in – i.e. the matter of religion for which He appointed them and sent them. The effect of magic on their bodies is not greater than murder, or the effect of poison and illnesses and the temporary states of sickness in them. Zakariyyā and his son, Yaḥyā, upon them peace, were killed. Our Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was poisoned…None of what we mentioned challenges their prophethood, nor degrades them. Rather it is only a test and trial. (A‘lām al-Ḥadīth, p. 1500-2)
The Ahl al-Sunnah, and the majority of the ‘ulamā’ of the ummah, agree on affirming magic and that it has a reality, like the realities of other established things; as distinguished from those who deny it and negate it being real, and attribute what occurs on account of it to baseless imaginings having no reality. Allāh (Transcendent is He) has indeed mentioned it in His Mighty Book, and mentioned that it is something that can be learned. He mentions what indicates that it is something on account of which one can be said to disbelieve, and on account of which a man can be separated from his wife. All of this cannot possibly be with respect to something having no reality. How can something having no reality be learnt? In this ḥadīth there is affirmation of it, and that it comprises of things that are buried and taken out. All of this disproves their assertion…It is not rationally inconceivable that the Creator (Glorious is He) ruptures the normal occurrences when some jumbled statements are pronounced, or some items are put together, or faculties are mixed in a sequence known only to a sorcerer. One who has observed that some physical objects are fatal like poison, some are detrimental like harmful drugs and some are beneficial like medicines that combat illnesses, it will not be farfetched in his mind that a sorcerer has exclusive knowledge of faculties that are fatal or speech that is detrimental or that leads to separation.Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ (476 – 544 H) quotes the above from his teacher, al-Māzirī, and then states:
Some innovators reject this ḥadīth using another method, claiming that it lowers the rank of prophethood and casts doubt on it, and everything that leads to this is false. They claim that regarding this as possible eliminates trust in the laws they legislated, and it may be that Jibrīl (upon him peace) is made to appear to him while there is nothing there to see, or that revelation came to him while it did not. What they say is false because evidence has been substantiated for his truthfulness in everything he conveys from Allāh (Transcendent is He) and his being protected therein. Prophetic miracle (mu‘jiza) proves his truthfulness, and regarding something against which evidence has been substantiated as being possible is invalid. But what relates to some matters of the material world for which he was not sent, and nor was he a favoured messenger on account of them, then in much of that he is subject to what affects man. Hence, it is not farfetched that something from the matters of the material world will be made to appear to him that has no reality.
Some people [i.e. scholars] have said that the ḥadīth only means that it would be made to appear to him that he copulated with his wives when he had not, and a person may imagine in his dream something similar to this while it has no reality – so it is nothing farfetched to imagine this in a wakeful state, even if it is not real. Some of our scholars said that it is possible that it is made to appear to him that he did something when in fact he did not do it, and yet he does not believe what he imagined as being correct; thus, all his beliefs are sound. Hence, there remains no path for the denier to object. (Al-Mu‘lim, 3:158-9)
In understdnding this ḥadīth, something clearer and further from the attacks of the deniers, appeared to me, while it is derived from the ḥadīth itself, taking it out of the parameters of possibility and interpretation to explicit mention and clarification. That is, the ḥadīth is narrated from Ibn al-Musayyib and ‘Urwah, in which it is reported from them: “The Jews of Banū Zurayq performed magic on the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), putting it in a well, until he almost did not recognise what he was seeing; and then Allāh showed it to him and he took it out of the well.”…It becomes clear from the meanings of these transmissions that the magic only took hold of his body and his outer limbs, not on his mind, heart or belief…Since this is so, there is nothing in what is mentioned, in terms of the magic occurring on him and taking effect in him, that causes any reservation over his messengership, nor anything that necessitates an attack [on this ḥadīth] by the deviants. (Ikmāl al-Mu‘lim, 7:87-8)Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ says something similar in his al-Shifā’ (Jā’izah Dubai, p. 719-22).
From the early Mālikī authorities, ‘Abdullāh ibn Wahb mentions the report of the magic performed on the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) in his transmission of the Muwaṭṭa’. (Al-Muḥārabah min al-Muwaṭṭa’, Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, p. 83)
As explained, true magic/sorcery (siḥr) is accomplished by carrying out some rituals known to sorcerers, by which they attract the help of evil jinn or shayāṭīn (devils). This can cause some damage to the person intended by the magic, although there is disagreement over the degree of damage it can cause.
Al-Ghazālī said:
[Magic] is real, since the Qur’ān has borne testimony to it and that it is a cause leading thereby to separating between spouses. Magic was performed on the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) as a result of which he became ill, until Jibrīl (upon him peace) informed him of that and the magic was removed from under a stone in the depth of a well...[In performing magic] together with [specific tools and timings], words of disbelief and filth opposing the Sharī‘ah are recited, by means of which assistance of the devils is taken. The sum total of that, by decree of Allāh’s (Exalted is He) enabling of the Norm, results in strange things occurring in the person on whom magic was performed. (Iḥyā’ ‘Ulūm al-Dīn, 1:111)The great Hanafī scholar and qāḍī, Ṣadr al-Islām Abu l-Yusr al-Bazdawī (421 – 493 H), while explaining that jinn can occupy the bodies of snakes (as confirmed in ḥadīth), states that jinn can cause pain, and relates: “One of my brothers, older than me, killed a large snake with a sword in our property. The jinn hurt him, making him crippled, his feet unable to move, for almost a month. Then we treated him by making the jinn happy until they left him alone, and then his condition went away from him. This is something I observed with my own eyes.” (Ḥāshiyat al-Ṭaḥtāwī, p 369)
The Qur’ān states that magic also affected the Prophet Mūsā (‘alayhissalām) until it appeared to him that the sticks of the magicians were snakes. (Qur’ān, 20:66) Regarding the verse: “The wrongdoers say: You only follow a man affected by magic” (17:47): There is no proof in what the disbelievers say or what they argue from in order to reject the truth. They would also describe the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) as “eating food and walking in the markets” (Qur’ān, 25:7) as a means to deride him, although this was something factual. The argument of the disbelievers in this verse is only of substance if the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was affected by magic in what he preached and delivered; as in, his preaching is influenced by insanity and magic. Hence, the disbelievers are quoted as saying: “You only follow a man affected by magic,” that is, the magic is influencing what he conveys to you and what you follow him in. But the magic in question was not of this nature. The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is protected from the type of magic or illness that could make him say something incorrect; hence the magic did not, and could not, influence his teachings or what he preached to the people. Merely being affected by magic, just like merely being affected by illness, does not itself entail any effect in what he preaches. It just means he was a human being. The narration says nothing more than his being affected by the magic, making him ill and making him see things and imagine things that were not there for some time. This is also possible from some forms of illness.
The ḥadīth does not say he became forgetful or clumsy, nor does it explicitly say that he became impotent. These are unfavourable readings of Bukhārī. It is authentically narrated from ‘Alī (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) that he said: “When you are narrated a ḥadīth about/from the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), regard it to be that which is most appropriate, most guided and most precautious.” (Sunan Ibn Mājah, 1:15; al-Radd ‘alā Siyar al-Awzā‘ī, p 28-9). In other words, a ḥadīth should be understood favourably and given benefit of the doubt. In contrast, Abu Layth gives it an unfavourable interpretation, and uses that to cast doubt on the whole tradition of Sunnī scholarship, even to the point of implying that the great scholars and imāms of our tradition failed to defend the honour of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)! Can someone who holds such a negative view of our tradition be trusted to present others with authentic information about that very tradition?
[1] For other refutations on Abu Layth, see:
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/533/abu-layth-adith-resembles-people
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/436/reply-abu-layth-joining-excuse
theislamiclens.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/comments-on-classical-islamic-views-on-the-punishment-for-apostasy/
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/497/avoid-abu-layth