Early Hadith Literature: II

1. There were efforts on the part of some companions to write down whatever they had heard personally from the prophet. But they did not write everything that the Prophet said as they were not in his company 24 hours.

1. The prophet initially discouraged his companions to write down words coming from him other than the Quran. Later on, the permission and not the command was given to write down his words in addition to the divine revelation. The early caliphs discouraged the writing of ahadith and did not leave any collection of hadith that could have been described as an officially approved collection of ahadith.

When we read the Quran, we never say before an aya, from Abu Bakr, or Umar, or Usman, or Ali, or Ayesha or Khadeeja (May Allah be pleased with them all) who heard it from the Prophet. Even though all of them heard the Quran directly from Prophet Muhammad, yet no one mentions their names for a very simple reason. The Prophet verified each and every letter of the Quran and ensured that every single aya is written down in the format as we see today. The evidence is so strong that there is no need for the chain of narrators to prove the authenticity of an aya. Even though some of the anecdotes mentioned in some books of ahadith would argue the contrary, but the verdict of the Quran that Allah revealed it and he would ensure its protection is final and supreme. The duties of the prophethood included the preservation of the Quran during his lifetime as was revealed to him and Prophet Muhammad fulfilled his duties. Those who argue that that the Quran was compiled during the lifetime of Abu Bakr or Uthman by a commission of six companions or more are simply contradicting the Quran and accusing the Prophet of not fulfilling his responsibilities of preserving the Quran in his lifetime. No Muslim can ever claim to be a Muslim if he denies the fact that the Quran, as we see it, was compiled during the lifetime of the Prophet.

However, when we read the hadith, we see a long chain of narrators before the expression that “thus said the prophet, or as we believe was said by the Prophet.” This is due to the fact that the prophet did not leave any collection of his sayings like the one we see in the compilation of Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Bukhari, Muslim, Nasai, etc.

Some of the companions often wrote what they heard the Prophet saying in several situations.  Yet, so far there is no concrete and conclusive empirical evidence that the companions asked the prophet to verify what they had attributed to him. In the initial stages of prophethood, the formative years of Islam, the Prophet is said to prohibit his companions from writing anything other than the Quran. Obviously, a substantial part of what the Prophet had said in those early days was not written down. Many of the early companions had passed away when this restriction was removed by the prophet in later days. Thus we would never know their narrations of the prophetic teachings.

Masnad Imam Ahmed, a book of ahadith is considered authentic by many and it includes the following passage in its contents, “The companions said that we used to write down whatever we would hear from the Prophet. Then, one day the Prophet came and asked us what is it that you are writing; we told him that whatever we hear from you, we write that down. He exclaimed, any other book beside the book of Allah! Keep the book of Allah clean, keep it purified; keep it away from all skepticism. We then brought out in an open space everything that we had written and burned it.” (Masnad Ahmed as quoted by Manazar Ahsan Gilani in his work Tadween Hadith, page #249, also reported in Tazkiratul Huffaz by Zahabi) So whatever was compiled by the companions until then was burned. How many ahadith were there and on what subject, no one can even guess.

In Zahabi’s Tazkiratul Huffaz it is mentioned that during his Caliphate, first Caliph Abu Bakr assembled people after the death of the Prophet and addressed them by saying that you attribute statements to the Prophet and you have differences among yourself about them, the people who would come after you would have differences much wider than yours; so you should not attribute any statement to the prophet and if anyone questions you about that tell him that we have the book of Allah amongst us. Thus, you should consider halal what this book has declared halal and consider haram what the book has declared haram.”

Zahabi also notes that Umm ul Momineen (the mother of the believers) Aisha said that “once my father, Caliph Abu Bakr, collected some 500 ahadith of the Prophet and I noticed that he was restless during his sleep, I asked him the reasons for this condition and he did not respond.  In the morning, he asked me to bring all those ahadith that he had collected and instructed me to burn them all.” So a substantial number of ahadith as remembered by the Prophet were burned by none other than the one who assumed the leadership of Muslims after the Prophet. No one can even guess what those ahadith were all about.

Ibn Abdul Birr in his book Bayanul Ilm says that the second Caliph Umar bin Khattab consulted the companions of the prophet about compiling the ahadith but he was not certain about their advice that the ahadith should be written down. So after a month of reflection, he told people to abandon the idea of compiling ahadith as it would confuse people between the importance of the Quran and hadith.

In Tabaqat ibn Sa’d it is mentioned that Imar bin Khattab instructed the people to bring to him all that they had written down as far as ahadith were concerned and he burned them all. (Tabaqat ibn Sa’d, volume V P# 141)

Ibn Abdul Bir further narrates that the second Caliph then sent the instructions in districts and other towns asking people to destroy whatever they had collected in the name of ahadith. (Jami Bayanul Ilm, Vol. I, P# 65)

If the intent of the Prophet was the preservation of his words, he would have ensured that whatever he was instructing the people besides the Quran should be written down, his closest companions should have ensured that each and every word coming out of his mouth is preserved and they would have left a collection of his instructions to save the succeeding generation from compiling books of ahadith.

Writing had become popular at the time of the Prophet. As mentioned by Ibn Hazm in his book Kitabul Fisl, there were about 100,000 copies of the Quran at the time of Caliph Umar, yet Caliph Abu Bakr and Umar bin Khattab prevented the people from compiling book of ahadith. The second Caliph went a step forward as he put in prison companions such as Abdullah ibn Masood, Abu Darda and Abu Masood Ansar for narrating ahadith in abundance (Tazkiratul Huffaz)

As is reported in the above-mentioned books, the compilation of the ahadith in written form was not the hallmark of the earliest period of Islam during the lifetime of the prophet or his immediate successors. If the earlier companions had preserved the sayings of the prophet, we would certainly be in a better position to understand the full extent of what the Prophet said and did. This lack of early written material gives an indication to the monumental efforts that many later day scholars had to do to compile the ahadith through a very vigorous and rigorous method of scrutiny. Whatever criterion they applied, it was to determine the accuracy of the statement that could alone be determined in definite terms by none other than the Prophet who was not there to verify them. It is this reality that differentiates the authenticity of the Quran with the ahadith. From the methodological perspective, the two cannot be the same and equal. One is verified by the Prophet and the other is built around the narrations attributed to him through a chain of narrators who repeated whatever they could remember was reportedly said by the prophet.

This does not mean that nothing of what the Prophet said or did was preserved initially. The companions preserved his Sunna of prayers, almsgiving, fasting, charity, Hajj, relations with non-Muslims, etc., etc.

There are many narrations in books such as Tirmidhi, Tabarani and Hakeem that quote many companions of the Prophet saying that they had the permission of the prophet to write down whatever they heard him saying. Rafey bin Khadeej is reported to have said the prophet told him to write down his words or Abdullah bin Umar bin Aas is reported to have said that “Whatever I heard from the Prophet, I would write down and then the Quraysh prohibited me from writing it saying that the Prophet is a human and often says words when he is in a state of anger or happiness so I stopped writing, then I mentioned this to the Prophet, and he pointed his finger towards his mouth and said, you should write down, I swear by the one who has my life in his control, nothing but the truth comes out from it.” (Abu Dawood and Masnad Darmee)

How much of what was written by the companions survived at the time of Caliph Abu Bakr and Umar bin Khattab who often prevented people from writing the ahadith is not known. Were the ahadith written down by Abdullah bin Umar bin Aas or Rafey bin Khadeej were used by the two Caliphs in their governing decisions is not known.

Today, there are several written decrees and letters attributed to the prophet that exist in their original form in books of ahadith. The book Letters and Treaties by the Prophet, (published by the Islamic Society of Nevada, Las Vegas in cooperation with Iqra International Trust) gives a list of those letters and treaties.

In Sahih Bukhari and Sunan Tirmidhi it is reported from Abu Hurayrah that during the opening of Makkah, the people of the tribe of Khaza killed a person from Bani Laith. When the prophet learned about it he addressed the people on the sanctity of the Kaaba and the reparation for murder. After the khutbah one Yemeni companion Abu shah asked the Prophet to make the sermon available to him in writing so the prophet asked his companions to write it down for Abu Shah.

HafizIb Abul Bir in his Jame Bayan writes that the Prophet dictated instructions to be written down about charity, obligations, the prophetic traditions and other matters for Umr bin Hazm in the 10^th hijra when he was sent to Najran as a governor. This writing is included in Sunan Nasai and other books of ahadith.

Sunan Dar Qatni mentions that according to Abdullah Ibn Umar the Prophet sent a decree to the people of Yemen that explained the rules of zakat on agricultural production.

Imam Shaabi also mentions of a written decree on zakat by the Prophet in his book Az Zakat

Sunan Abu Dawood and Tirmidhi mention that the Abdullah bin Umar narrated that the Prophet dictated a book called Kitab us Sadaqat that was to be sent to his governors when the death overtook him. Both Abu Dawood and Tirmidhi have included many ahadith from this book in their compilations.

6. Abdullah bin Hakeem is reported to have said that the prophet sent a set of instructions about the hide of dead animals to the tribe of Juhaina. (Sunan Abi Dawood, Jame Tirmidhi, Sunan Nasai, Sunan Ibn Maja)

Abu Jafar Muhammad bin Ali reported that in the sword case of the Prophet we found a saheefa that had many ahadith of the prophet written down. (Jame Bayanul Ilm)

The Prophet is said to have written some 379 letters to different tribes besides treaties and invitation to Islam to several rulers. There is also written account of a census conducted by the Prophet in Medina.

The Prophet is said to have given a promissory note to the Suraqa bin Malik Mudalji who had followed him during his migration to Medina. Similar promissory notes were also issued to a few tribes

Among the companions, Abdullah bin Umar bin AlAas is said to have compiled a book of the ahadith of the Prophet known as Sadiqah and he is reported to have said: “There are two things that give me inspiration in life, As Sadiqa and al-Wahat. Sadiqa is the book that is based on what I heard from the Prophet and Wahat is the land that my father donated in the cause of Allah.”

His compilation was passed on to his grandson Shuayb bin Muhammad bin Abdullah and from him, it passed on to his son Umar. Thus all the ahdaith from Umar bin Shuayb quoted in the books of ahadith are from Sahifa Sadiqa. However, it is not certain how many ahadith were included in Sahifa Sadiqa and how many of them made into the current books of ahadith.

In Sahih Bukhari there is a  reference to a statement of the fourth Caliph Ali ibn Talib who himself had compiled a sahifa: “We did not write anything else from the Prophet except the Quran and that is in this sahifa.” It is said that this sahifa had ahadith of the prophet about Zakat, sanctity of life, boundaries of the Medina, release of prisoners, breaking of pledges and erasings the marks on land, etc. In several books of ahadith including the Bukhari, there are ahadith quoted from this sahifa.

Rafey bin Khadeej is said to have written several ahadith from the prophet. Additionally, in the books of ahadith, there are several letters written by the Caliphs to their governor that contain the sayings of the Prophet.

Thus we see two patterns distinct in the early hadith literature.

This situation led to methodological innovation and expansion on the part of latter-day scholars including the Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik whose books kitab ul Athar and Muwatta are earliest attempts to compiled ahadith. They asked questions such as who heard it directly or indirectly from the prophet. How did they transmit it to others? How did the others preserve it and pass that on to their succeeding generation? What was the character of people who preserved the sayings or actions of the Prophet in their memory? Did all of them have the same level of memory? These any many others were the questions the scholars dealt with. They did not outright reject everything they heard and they did not approvingly accept everything they were passed on. Each one of them developed his or her own methodology to reduce the probability of mistakes. Yet, they all knew that they were still dealing with a body of knowledge that was not verified by the Prophet himself with the exception of those written records that history had preserved. But the literature was vast compared to what was preserved in writing.  Imam Bukhari found 600,000 ahadith, Imam Muslim 300,000, Imam Tirmidhi, e00,000, Imam Abdu Dawood, 500,000, Imam ibn Maja, 300,000 and Imam Nasai 200,000.

Each one of them made their individual efforts to develop their own criterion to choose what they considered authentic. Their efforts must be lauded for their monumental task, yet they were aware that they had to undertake the task because like the Quran, there were no huffaz of ahadith who had transmitted the hadith through memory from one generation to another.

Syed Mawdudi in his book Tafheemat sums up the situation candidly: “Suppose I give a speech today heard by thousands. Now ask those present at the meeting a few hours, not a few days or weeks or years later to repeat what I said in my speech, you would notice each narrating it in different style, tones, and words. They would not be the same in their narration. Someone would quote a full sentence, some a few words, some the gist of what I said etc., some would paraphrase it, some would conceptualize it, some who might not be clear in his understanding might misrepresent facts, and those whose memory is sound might repeat what I said and those who lack a good memory might repeat portion of it in their own words.” (Tafheemat, Vol 1)

The compilers of the hadith were aware of their limitations and each of them acknowledged it. They knew that their work can never be equal in authenticity or veracity to the Quran, the book that was received by the Prophet alone and verified by him alone. It is this limitation that makes the development of hadith sciences part of human sciences, not the divine sciences. Thus the science of hadith is a human effort to determine the probability of the accuracy of the statement or action attributed to the prophet. It is not the science of what the prophet said or did, rather a science of what the scholars based on their methodologies believe the Prophet said or did. Thus anyone who is raising any question about the authenticity of the hadith is not questioning the Prophet, rather he or she is questioning the methodologies and accuracy used by the compilers.

Imams, such as Malik, Abu Hanifa, Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi. Ibn Maja, Abu Dawood, and Nasaid selected the statements or actions attributed to the prophet based on their methodology. Each one of them rejected the bulk of what they heard. For instance, Imam Malik gave preference to those narrations that came from the people living in Medina, Imam Abu Hanifa included narrations from people from different region and Imam Bukhari rejected some 95 percent of what he had collected.

Science of the Compilation of Ahadith

An Introduction

(Note: This is not a series on Ahadith. Muhaditheen or traditionists do that. This is not an attempt to redefine Ahadith or re-categorize them. Traditionists do that. This is not about evaluating ahadith. Traditionists and jurists do that. This is a series about the history of the compilation of ahadith. How did our previous scholars compile the books of ahadith. What methodologies they adopted and how did they select what they selected and reject what they rejected. Of course, based on my readings of this vast literature, I also developed certain understanding and at the end of the series, I would submit that to readers. I am not a traditionist nor a jurist. I have studied all the seven known books of ahadith as well as many others in their original language. I have also studied the methodologies adopted by their compilers. I am a simple student of Islam with a keen interest in research to make things clearer to me. My only purpose is to share what I have learned with others as I feel that it is an obligation upon those who read and who try to acquire knowledge. Whatever, I will present here is based on research with references. I will separate my opinions with facts as reported by earlier scholars. If I am dishonest in my research, Allah will expose my weaknesses and take away the knowledge that He alone gives. If I am honest, but not proficient in all aspects of knowledge, He will guide me as he has guided many others. If I promote a particular point of view, the readers will discover it. If I make mistakes, the people of knowledge will expose me. My sincere purpose is to inform the readers in simple language the history of Hadith without any biases or favors. Please do not question my right to write what I am writing about. It is a right that my creator has given me and I will exercise it urging everyone that each one of us is gifted with the divine to acquire knowledge that He alone has created.) 

Abd al-Rahman ibn Sakhr Al-Azdi, Abu Hurayrah or Abu Huraira (603 – 681) was a companion of Prophet Muhammad and is the narrator of hadith most quoted in isnad by Sunni Muslim scholars. Shia scholars seldom accept his narrated ahadith and when they do, they do only when they are narrated by companions considered authentic by them and the members of the family of the Prophet considered reliable, by the Prophet and his cousin and the fourth Caliph Ali bin Abu talib (Radhi Allahu Anhu).

He had many disciples and one of them was Wahb ibn Munabbih later came to be known as a traditionist. He died at the age of 90 in the year 731 C.E., some 50 years after the death of his teacher. It is narrated that Abu Hurayrah compiled a collection of ahadith for his student Wahab, which came to be known as As Sahifatus Sahih, later named as Sahifa Hammam bin Munabbih.
After Wahab, this sahifa was transferred to Muammar bin Rashid Yemeni and passed it on to Abdur Razzaq bin Hammam bin Naefy Al-Humeiri. He wrote a book on the Science of Hadith known as Al Musannif. His manuscripts are available in Istanbul, Yemen, and India. He had two students Imam Ahmed Hanbal and Abdulhasan bin Yusuf Al-Silmi.

Imam Hanbal included it in his Masnad under the chapter of Abu Hurayrah.

Silmi also passed on this sahifa to his students. From his students, it reached to Muhammad bin Abdur Rehman al Masoudi and Ismail bin Jama. The Masoodi's manuscript is in the library of Istanbul and Ibn Jama's manuscript is in Berlin. It was the Berlin manuscript that was copied by Professor Muhammad Hamidullah who published it in 1953 in Arabic with translations in English, French and Urdu in later years.  Even though some people have questioned the authenticity of this manuscript claiming that Dr. Hamidullah admitted in later years that he had forged it to prove the authenticity of the hadith literature. (http://mubashirnazir.org/QA/000300/Q0232-Sahifa.htm) But it is more an accusation than an assertion as the original manuscripts are available in the libraries of Istanbul and Berlin.
The Sahifa, written by Abu Hurayrah is one of the earliest collections of hadith written before 681 C.E. preserved in its original manuscript.  It has 138 ahadith mostly on ethics. The Kitab al-Athar was the other book composed in Islam after the generation of the Companions. Al-Imam al-A’zam Abu Hanifah Nu’man ibn Thabit (699-767 CE) wrote it. It comprises Ahadith that connect directly back to the Messenger of Allah (marfu’), those which stop short at a Companion or one of the followers (mawquf) and those which are attributed to the Messenger, directly by one of the followers or the followers of the followers without attribution to a Companion (mursal). His companions Imam Abu Yusuf, Imam Zufar, Imam Muhammad, Imam al-Hasan ibn Ziyad, Imam Hammad ibn Abi Hanifah the Imam’s son, Hafs ibn Ghiyath and others narrated it from him. It comprises some 40,000 ahdith. However, the authenticity of the narration has been questioned by some scholars.

The Muwatta of Imam Malik is the other the earliest extant collections of hadith covering rituals, rites, customs, traditions, norms, and laws of the time of Prophet Muhammad. Imam Malik (711-795) was born some 30 years Abu Hurayrah  and he selected only about one percent of Ahadith for inclusion into the Muwatta, from the corpus of 100,000 narrations available to him. In later years, he removed many from the one percent he had included in the original.  He compiled the collection after great hesitation  over a period of forty years to represent the "well-trodden path" of the people of Medina. Its name means that it is a book that is much agreed upon about whose contents the people of Medina were unanimously agreed. The Muslim jurist Imam Muhammad ibn Idris Ash Shafai famously said, "There is not on the face of the earth a book – after the Book of Allah which is more authentic than the book of Malik. It is interesting to note that in the Muwatta is not included in the popular six collections of Sahih ahadith that include the books by Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Tirmidhi, Imam Abu Dawood, Imam ibn Maja and Imam Abdur Rahman Nasai.
The six major collections of ahadith were compiled in the 11th century C.E. , some 250 years after the death of Abu Hurayrah.  It is interesting that scholars in later centuries found more ahadith then the ones written down by Abu Hurayrah.  For instance, Imam Bukhari is said to have found 600,000 ahadith (some say 300,000), Imam Muslim found some 400,000, Imam Hanbal over a million and Imam Yahya Ibn Moeen 1.2 million.
It is worthy to note that Abu Hurayrah gives only 138 ahadith to his student and Imam Malik finds 100,000 ahadith while the later day traditionists found over a million ahadith.
Obviously, scholars developed methodologies to scrutinize statements and actions attributed to the prophet as narrated by the successive generation of people. They sorted, sifted, categorized, evaluated, checked their authenticity and even rejected the bulk of the collections.
They developed the science of `Ilm al-Riwayah and ilm Diraya.

`Ilm al-Riwayh is the science in which we study hadith through narrations. It looks into the authenticity at the source and accuracy in the transmission and reporting of the hadith so as to prevent distortion and error, deliberate or otherwise. `Ilm tarikh al-ruwat, `Ilm Jarh wal-ta`dil:, `Ilm Mutabi wa'l-Ishhad are the sub branches of this science.

`Ilm al-Dirayah is the science in which we study hadith through its meaning. It is concerned with ensuring the accuracy of the text of the hadith by paying attention to all the nuances of the text as well as any ruling it might contain. `Ilm Gharib al-Hadith, `Ilm Mukhtalif al-Hadith, `Ilm Ziyadat al-Thiqar: `Ilm al-nasikh wa'l-Mansukh  and `Ilm al-Hadith wa al-Tadlis are its subcategories.:

The emergence of the science of the compilation of ahadith was necessitated because the Prophet had not left any collection of his sayings that was checked, verified and approved by him. When Ibn Abbas was asked what did the Prophet leave, he replied: "what is between the two dafateen (i.e. the Quran)" (Bukhari)
The task of the scholars to develop methodologies to determine the accuracy of the statements and actions of the Prophet was immense and huge. They were only humans and they relied on what either they had heard or found in some scattered manuscripts. They did not have anything like the Quran that was approved, compiled, and memorized by the Prophet in his own lifetime. So everything that was attributed to him had to be dealt with in this context.
That is the reason that the traditionsts were very careful in reminding the readers that what they were presenting what is attributed to the prophet as they understand or the narrators understand implying that the probability that the fact may be different may not be ruled out.  
The Ilm riwayah led them to determine the accuracy of the chains of narrations and lm diraya led them to determine the accuracy of the statement. The emergence of these sciences is a testimony that the Prophet did not leave any collection of his words approved by him at the time of his departure from the world.
The devotion and sincerity of scholars were beyond question, as they realize themselves that they were still dealing with a body of literature that did not have the approval of the prophet even though the actions and statements were attributed to him. It was an expression of the highest responsibility and the greatest scholarship that they showed in developing the principles of the science of the compilation of ahadith with the full understanding that their efforts were human and the subject they were dealing with was a serious one as the only one who was qualified to verify what was attributed to him was not amongst them.
In the forthcoming articles, writings will focus on the two branches of ilm tadween hadith, with articles on the history of hadith collections, traditionists, statements or actions attributed to the prophet with a conclusion about how to do I personally study the hadith. I hope you will have the patience to go through this series without jumping to the conclusion unless you have read all the articles.
Each one of us is responsible for our own understanding. No one would be held accountable for other's actions and understanding. I am presenting my understanding hoping that a greater discussion will take place and help us move forward in our understanding of the sources of our faith.

Lies and More Lies Against the Prophet

Some Muslim and non-Muslim historians allege that the prophet also ordered the assassination of Abu Afak, Sofian ibn Khalid, Abu Rafi, Oseir bin Zarim, Abu Sufian, Nadhir bin Harith, Okba, Abdul Ozza and Moawiya bin Mughaira. They also allege without providing any evidence that at the command of the Prophet Umm Kirfa was executed and Urnee robbers’ bodies were mutilated after the killing. They also say that Kinana, chief of the Jews of Khyber and his cousin were tortured in addition to the killing of Abu Basir.  

The non-Muslims pick up these events from Muslim historians and add their own details and promote lies against the prophet propagating that he was a prophet of terror and Islam originated in violence.  Much of the propaganda revolves around these lies. Earliest Muslim historians or writers included whatever they heard from their contemporaries without verifying their claims. None of their contemporaries were present at the time of the Prophet and whatever is attributed to them is what they heard from someone.

Most of these allegations are based on one narration and in none of the allegations, any solid evidence is given. These accounts contradict each other and whatever is attributed to the Prophet defies his character and the Quranic teachings. It is strange that the historians did not apply the Quranic criterion to analyze the reported incidents. Moreover, they also ignored the teachings of the Prophet in dealing in matters they were reporting. A cursory analysis of the reported events reveals that the prophet had no part in any of the events attributed to him. Here is a brief description of some of the incidents alleged attributed to the Prophet.

Abu Afak

The Prophet is accused of asking his companions to kill Abu Afak, a poet who reportedly was very vocal in his criticism of Islam. He is said to be 120 years old. Ibn Ishaq, in his work Life of Muhammad, (lost and rewritten from memory by Ibn Hisham some 50 years after it was reportedly first jotted down) and Ibn Sa’d compiling reports on the basis of oral narrations conclude that the prophet was upset at his criticism and commanded his companions to get rid of him. It is said that the prophet reportedly used the following expression: “who will get rid of that rascal.”  The two early historians did not identify the sources. The reported incident contradicts the Quranic teachings of forgiveness and dealing with those critical of others. The Quran says: “Nor can goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: Then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate!” (41:34)

It is unimaginable that the one who is preaching the above divine teaching would be the first one to violate it.

The Quran further says: “Let those (disposing of an estate) have the same fear in their minds as they would have for their own if they had left a helpless family behind: Let them fear Allah, and speak words of appropriate (comfort).” (4:9)

Or “O you who believe! Fear Allah, and (always) say a word directed to the Right: (33:70)

The language attributed to the Prophet is very vulgar. Nowhere in the authentic literature had we read that the Prophet ever used a vulgar or foul word even to describe his enemies.  Based on a simple comparison with the Quranic message, this incident should have been thrown out of the books. It is false and at best can be called a forgery.  

Let us examine the narrations in Ibj Isha and Ibn Sa’d’s words.

Ibn Ishaq's account

"Salim b. Umayr's expedition to kill Abu Afak".

Abu Afak was one of the B. Amr b. Auf of the B. Ubayda clan. He showed his disaffection when the apostle [Muhammad] killed al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit and said:

Long have I lived, but never have I seen

An assembly or collection of people

More faithful to their undertaking

And their allies when called upon

Than the sons of Qayla when they assembled,

Men who overthrew mountains and never submitted,

A rider who came to them split them in two (saying)

"Permitted", "Forbidden", of all sorts of things.

Had you believed in glory or kingship

You would have followed Tubba

The apostle [Muhammad] said, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" Whereupon Salim b. Umayr, brother of B. Amr b. Auf, one of the "weepers", went forth and killed him. Umama b. Muzayriya said concerning that:

You gave the lie to God's religion and the man Ahmad [the prophet]!

By him who was your father, evil is the son he produced!

A hanif gave you a thrust in the night saying

Take that, Abu Afak, in spite of your age!

Though I knew whether it was man or jinn

Who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught).^[2]

Ibn Sa'd's account

Another description of this story comes from The Major Classes by ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi, although this work is based on the former source:

"Then occurred the "sariyyah" [raid] of Salim Ibn Umayr al-Amri against Abu Afak, the Jew, in [the month of] Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijra, of the Apostle of Allah. Abu Afak, was from Banu Amr Ibn Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allah, and composed (satirical) verses [about Muhammad]. Salim Ibn Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said, "I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu Afak or die before him. He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people who were his followers rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him."^[3]

The two accounts differ in their narrations. Ibn Ishaq’s account attributes the killing to the Prophet while Ibn Sa’d say that it was committed by the companions on their own

Ibn Ishaq also accuses the prophet of killing one  al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit, while Ibn Sa’d does not mention that at all. One does not find any reference to the killing of Harith except in Ibn Ishaq’s work. Obviously, Ibn Sa’d must have strong reasons not to include the details given by Ibn Ishaq, who did not provide any source for his information. The writings were lopsided as is also evident from the discrepancy between the accounts of Wakidi and his secretary on this incident. Wakidi says that Salim had taken a vow to kill Abu Afak or die himself while his secretary as reported by Sir W. Muir, says “this was was the command of the Prophet.”

Based on the discrepancies, there is no reason to believe that the Prophet knew about the incident attributed to him.

Sofian-bin Khalid.

It is reported in some books of history that Sofian bin Khalid, leader of the Bani Lahyan tribe vowed to wage war against Muslims.  Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham and Ibn Sad did not report that the Prophet instructed his companions to kill him. Abu Dawood’s collection of the Prophet’s sayings mentions that “belief is the restraint to assassination and no believer should commit assassination. How can the Prophet act contrary to his own words? The story is a concocted one.

Abu Rafe

Abu Rafe was known as Sallam Ibn Abul Hozeiq, was the chief of bani Nazeer. He was a prominent leader in the war against Muslims in the battle of confederates. There is no evidence to suggest that the Prophet asked his companions to kill him. Ibn Ishaq does not give any account of that. However, the secretary of Waqidi says that the Prophet gave the command to kill him. It is strange that the earlier writers did not find any report of such an act while the later ones wrote about it in great details.

Oseir bin Zarim

He was the chief of Bani Nazeer. It is reported that he was mobilizing tribes against Muslims and the Prophet commanded his companions to get rid of him. There is nothing in the writings of early writers that the Oseir’s death had anything to do with the Prophet. The later narratives are incomplete and imperfect and do not give any evidence that the Prophet knew about the killing.

It is reported by Ibn Sad, secretary of Waqidi that Abu Sufian sent a Bedouin to Medina to assassinate the Prophet. The plot was discovered and the prophet allegedly retaliated by sending one Amr to assassinate Abu Sufian. Ibn Ishaq and Waqidi are silent on this and there is nothing to prove that this report is accurate.

It is also alleged that Nadhr bin Harith, one of the prisoners of war was killed after the battle of Badr. However, there are other reports given by Ibn Manda and Abu Naeem say that Nadhr bin Harith was present at the battle of Honain, eight years after the battle of Badr. They also say that the Prophet gave him one hundred camels. It is also said that Nadhr was among the earliest Muslims who had migrated to Abyssinia.

Okba bin Muit is another prisoner who was reportedly killed after the battle of Badr. Ibn Ishaq says that he was killed by Asim while Ibn Hisham says it was Ali who killed him. There is also a discrepancy in the mode of Okba’s execution. Some say he was beheaded, other say he was crucified and his body was mutilated. However, no account about his killing meets the criterion of accuracy.

Abdul Ozza is another prisoner who, according to some historians was killed after the battle of Badr. However, there are reports that the Prophet released him by way of his compassion for his five daughters and freed him without any compensation. But Abdul Ozza went back to his people and exhorted his supporters to bear up arms against the Prophet and joined the Makkan army. He was killed in a skirmish that took place at Hamra in the battle. He was not killed at the command of the Prophet as was alleged.

Moawiya bin Mughaira was also freed by the prophet, and was asked to leave Medina within three days. Yet he overstayed and tried to instigate the people against the Prophet and broke the covenant that he had made. He was reprimanded and yet he did not keep his words. He was duly prosecuted and brought to justice.

The name of Um Kirfa is mentioned as the one who was killed at the command of the prophet with her each leg tied to a separate camel. Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, and Waqidi did not give any account of that. The prophet was not even aware of her or her killing.

One of the allegations against the prophet is that he ordered his companions to kill Urnee robbers who had plundered the camels of Medina and cut off the hands and legs of their herdsman. This again is a lie against the Prophet who warned his companions against the mutilation.

The prophet showed magnanimity, and kindness to the prisoners of war. There are reports that talk about this treatment of prisoners. We read in the hadith literature accounts saying:  “Blessing be on the men of Medina. They made us ride, while they themselves walked, they gave us wheat bread to eat, when there was little of it, contenting themselves with dates.”

 Prisoners were generally freed by the prophet. For example the prisoners of the Bani Mustalik were released by the prophet without any ransom. The Bani Hawazin’s six thousand prisoners at Honain were set free. Even those who had plotted to kill the Prophet at the Hudaibiya were freed. It is reported that they were 80 in numbers.

With so much evidence about his kindness it is a lie to accuse the prophet of killing his opponents or asking his companions to mutilate the bodies of criminals.

Lies have been woven without any evidence. The Prophet’s life is an example of mercy and magnanimity. It is unimaginable to even think that that prophet would indulge in an act of violence and torture even against his own enemies. It is true that some Muslim historians have written accounts to suggest revenge and violence against the enemies of Muslims. Yet, when judged on the basis of evidence, none of them qualify to be called authentic or accurate.

One must never lose sight of the fact that the identity of the Prophet is built around the Quranic concept of “mercy to the worlds” and anything that challenges that identify is false, wrong and utter lie no matter who says and where it comes from. This simple principle will liberate us from scores of lies that are presented to us as part of the statements and actions attributed to our prophet.