A brother wrote:
As-salam alaykum!
Al-hamd
li Allah,
a brilliant site. May Allah increase you in knowledge and wisdom and increase
your good deeds on the day of judgment.
I think I have a difficult question to
ask for which I was unable to find an intelligent answer:
Allah promises us that if we follow
Allah's guidance and put full trust in him, then Satan will not have any power
over us. If so, then why did Allah allow his true Prophet (salla
allah ‘alay hi wa sallam) to be bewitched by a Jew to the point that he
thought he was having relations with his wives, when actually he was not? Why
did not Allah protect him from such magic since he was a Prophet of God?
Was-salam.
Answer by Ahmad Shafaat
Wa alaykum as-salam!
Jazak Allah! for your email and your kind words and prayers.
To do justice to your question, we need to
examine the story of bewitchment by a Jew of the Holy Prophet from two
different but related points of view:
a)
Is
the story historical, that is, did the reported bewitchment actually take
place?
b)
Is
the story problematic from a religious point of view?
Is the story historical?
There are indications that the story is in fact a
product of the imagination of some of those early “Muslim” story-tellers who
have given us so many other fascinating but fundamentally false stories about
the Holy Prophet (may God honor and bless him evermore).
First, the story does not
have the sort of multiplicity of chains of transmission that inspire a great
deal of confidence in its historicity. If we do a search of the nine books of
Hadith in the CD entitled The Hadith Encyclopedia,
which has tens of thousands of hadith narrations, we find that the chains of
transmission of this story can be divided into two categories:
A) Hisham
– his father ‘Urwah – ‘Aishah
From Hisham several people (Yahya, ‘Isa, Abu Usamah, Ibn Numayr etc) narrate the story, so we can take it back to
him with considerable confidence. But we have no way to verify that Hisham
heard the story from ‘Urwah, since he is the only one to attribute it to him.
And if we do accept that Hisham did relate it from ‘Urwah we cannot be sure
that ‘Urwah heard it from ‘Aishah, since he is the only one to attribute it to
her.
Hisham was a resident of Madinah, although he
later moved to Iraq
and died there. Imam Malik, also from Madinah quotes many traditions from him
but he does not quote this one. One explanation of this fact is that when he
was residing in Madinah in early part of his life Hisham either did not know
this story or he did not give credence to it.
It is reported by scholars that Hisham became
very feeble-minded in his later years. Thus ‘Uqayli says: qad kharifa fi akhir ‘umr hi (he mentally degenerated in
the last part of his life). It may be that Hisham heard the story from some
unreliable narrators in his earlier years and in his later years his
feeble-mindedness led him to attribute it to ‘Urwah. This would explain why no
other narrator transmits the story from ‘Urwah or from ‘Aishah. .
B) The
second category of chains of transmission in the Hadith Encyclopedia has:
Abu Mu‘awiyah – al-A‘mash – Yazid bin Hayyan – Zayd bin Arqam
These chains are even more problematic than those
from ‘Aishah. They are found only in two of the nine collections of Hadith:
Nasa`i (4012) and Ahmad (18467) and allow us to take the hadith back with some
confidence only to Abu Mu‘awiyah who died in 195. We have only his word that
al-A‘mash (d. 147) narrated the story and the same is true about two earlier
narrators: Yazid bin Hayyan and Zayd bin Arqam.
Second, there are many
contradictions in the various narrations of the story. Some say that the
Prophet imagined he was doing a thing but he was not doing it. Others say that
he thought he had done a thing but actually he had not done; or he intended to
do something but would forget doing it. In some narrations the objects used in
magic (the Prophet’s comb with his hair sticking to it) are taken out of the
well in which they were placed while in others they are not taken out. In some
narrations ‘Aishah asks why did the Prophet not show the objects to the people
while in others her question is about why did he not expose Labid ibn al-A‘sam, the Jewish
magician who allegedly cast the spell on the Prophet. These contradictions are
found in those narrations that come from Hisham and are acceptable to Bukhari
and Muslim. If we include other narrations the contradictions increase. Some
say that Jibra`il came and revealed
the details of magic. Others say that it were two angels (often not identified
by names, but sometimes named as Jibra`il
and Mika`il) who made the revelation. Some say that Labid did the magic while others say that
his sisters performed the evil deed. Some say that the Prophet himself went to
take out the objects used in the act of magic. Others say that he sent some of
his Companions for the task. Some say that the Prophet forgave the Jewish
magician while one narration says that he was executed. Some narrations talk
only of the effect of magic on the sexual relations but others talk of loss of
appetite and still others talk of blindness. In many narrations the cure
happens when the object used in magic were found, while in others the cure
happens when Surahs 113 and 114 were revealed and recited by the Prophet. The
objects used in magic are also subject to change. In some narrations instead of
the comb and hair the object is a thread with knots. In some narrations the
Jewish magician is forgiven but in some he is killed.
Third, quite apart from the Muslim belief in the prophethood of Muhammad (salla
allah ‘alay hi wa sallam), it is a fact accepted by even many non-Muslims
that the Prophet was a man of exceptional strength. Thus even an atheist like
Maxime Rodinson recognizes what he calls a “power” in Muhammad, “which, with
help of circumstances [made] him one of the rare men who have turned the world
upside down.” It is
not plausible that a man of such strength would be affected by magic and after
being affected would need to search for a comb and hair to free himself,
instead of using his tremendous God-given inner strength or direct help of God.
It should also be noted that the story has not
received unanimous acceptance from scholars. Some scholars from relatively
early times have rejected the story. Thus Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas (305-370 AH), one of the greatest hanafi scholars of the fourth century writes
in his Ahkam al-Qur`an:
This type of ahadith has been
created by heretics who give importance to low-level people [by allowing the
possibility that likes of Labid could
cast a spell on the Prophet]. They are fabricated to falsify the miracles of
the prophets and to create doubts in them and to show that there is no
difference between miracles of the prophets and tricks of the magicians, all
being of the same nature.
It is probable that Darimi, Tirmidhi and Abu
Da`ud also did not accept the story, since they do not mention it in their
collections. It is unlikely that this is because they did not know the story,
since the story was well known by the time of these scholars.
In addition to the above-mentioned scholars, who
are well respected among Muslims, the story, as noted by al-Suhayli, was also rejected by “the Mu‘tazilah
and some ahl al-bida‘ ”. (Ibn Hisham,
p. 362, n. 3)
We can easily understand why the story, once
created, would become popular. Magical concepts and practices were very common
in the ancient world just as they still are in many parts of the world. Many
people needed them to explain happenings in their lives. Many others also made
money using peoples’ emotional needs and fears, either casting spells on others
or curing people of such spells. The story may be an attempt by some of these
people in Iraq
to keep their clients’ faith in magic in the face of Islamic rejection of it.
By telling the Muslims that even their Prophet was influenced by magic and
needed to undo its effects, not by the direct help from God but by magical
practices, the story is encouraging them to keep faith in magic and its
practices. This purpose is reflected in the tolerance that the story shows to
magical practices. Contrary to what is expected, the Prophet does not issue a
strong condemnation of magic after discovering his condition and being cured.
He almost ignores that Labid engaged
in a sin and an act of great hostility towards the Prophet and hence against
Islam. Many narrations in fact explicitly state that the Prophet forgave the
magician. This is said to be an act of charity for a personal enemy. But many
narrations of the story make it clear that Labid’s action was not motivated by
any personal vendetta against the Prophet but was rather a part of the Jewish
fight against the Prophet’s mission, similar to many of their other actions.
Contrast the tolerance towards magic in the story
with the Qur`an, which condemns magic as Satanic and ultimately without real
power (2:102, 20:69). Also, note that in the Qur`anic story of Moses and the
Egyptian magicians, magic is defeated by a miraculous act of God and not by the
use of suitable magical practices. In our story, on the contrary, the cure
requires working within the system of magic. In this way magical
practices are given much greater respect than is the case in the Qur`an.
Is the story problematic from a religious
point of view?
If despite the above considerations some Muslims
and non-Muslims decide to regard the bewitchment of the Prophet as substantially
historical, the question arises whether it is problematic from a religious
point view. In particular, does the story call into question the Islamic claim
that Muhammad (salla allah ‘alay hi wa sallam)
was a messenger of God, as some Christian missionaries suggest?
To the extent that the story seems to show some
tolerance for the magical practices, it is in some of its details, as I said
earlier, problematic. But, as I now show, the story in its earliest forms is
not problematic to the extent that it calls the prophethood of Muhammad (salla
allah ‘alay hi wa sallam) into question, and this is true both within the
Islamic thought and the Christian thought.
To begin with let us observe that true prophets
of God are engaged in a battle with the forces of evil, both visible and
invisible. In this battle they can suffer temporary setbacks. As is well known,
they can be persecuted, stoned, wounded, or even killed. The promise of Allah
to the prophets and the rest of the righteous people is that despite these
setbacks, they will win the battle, even if it is after their death.
In principle therefore there seems to be no
problem in accepting that one of the temporary setback a true prophet of God
can suffer is an effect of magic. The Qur`an and the Bible provide examples.
In the Qur`an when the magicians called by
Pharaoh to contest Moses’ claim of being a messenger of God gather in the court
of the king they throw their ropes and sticks:
Then behold! Their ropes and
sticks, through their magic, appeared to him as though they moved fast. So
Moses conceived fear in him. But We said, “Fear not! Surely, you will have
upper hand. And throw what is in your right hand. It will swallow what they
have fabricated. What they have fabricated is only a magician’s trick, and
magician never succeeds no matter where his reach (20:66-69).
This passage shows that the Prophet Moses (may
peace be upon him) was temporarily affected by magic in that, like other people
in the court of Pharaoh, he saw the ropes and sticks moving fast and was
gripped by fear.
In the New Testament the devil tempts the Prophet
Jesus for forty days. He has so much power over Jesus’ body that “he took him
to Jerusalem and placed him on the
pinnacle of the temple” (Luke 4:9 = Matt 4:5).
One may try to make a distinction between magic
harming a prophet and people injuring/ killing him. But there is no real
difference between the two. People trying to injure/kill a prophet and a
magician trying to harm him are acting as instruments of the same devil. This can
also be supported both from the Qur`an and the New Testament. Thus the Qur`an
describes those people who fight God and his Messenger as the “party of Satan”
(hizb al-Shaytan) and promises that God and his
Messengers will win (58:19:21; see also 6:112). In the New Testament, Jesus
describes his Jewish enemies as children of the devil and his instruments (John
8:42-44).
After the above general comments, let us now look
more closely at the story of magical spell on the Holy Prophet. There are three
relevant questions: What was the effect of the magic on the Holy Prophet? How
long it lasted? How was it removed?
The effect is described variously as follows:
1)
The
Prophet imagined that he was doing a thing while he was not doing it (yukhayyalu ilayhi anna hu yaf‘alu al-shay`a
wa ma yaf‘aluhu). (Muslim 4059)
2)
The
Prophet imagined that he had done a thing while he had not done it (yukhayyalu ilayhi anna hu kana
yaf ‘alu al-shay`a wa ma
fa‘alahu) (Bukhari 5321)
3)
The
Prophet used to think that he had been to his wives when in fact he had not
been. (Bukhari 5323, Ibn Hisham, p.
362: (Labid) huwa alladhi akhkhadha rasul allah ‘an nisa` hi). A
tradition in Ibn Sa‘d (Vol. 2, p.
248-252) adds loss of appetite.
4)
Loss or weakening of eyesight. (Ibn Sa‘d, Vol. 2, p. 248-252)
If the effect was limited to 3) and/or 4), that
is, to the Prophet’s marital relationship and/or loss of appetite and/or loss
of eyesight the story is not problematic from a religious point of view. The
Prophet could have functioned normally in his duties as a prophet of God
despite these alleged physical problems.
The story could be problematic if the magical
spell affected the mental faculties of the Prophet, as in 1) and 2), for in
this case the question could arise whether the Prophet forgot to deliver some
revelations he had received or whether he imagined receiving revelations that
he actually did not. But it is not certain that an effect on the mental faculties
of the Holy Prophet was a part of the earliest story. Moreover, it should be
noted that even if we assume an effect on the mental faculties of the Prophet,
the story would not be problematic if the effect lasted for only a short time,
say a few days. For in that case, the story could be regarded as similar to the
story about the Prophet Moses mentioned above. Just as the Prophet Moses was
temporarily mentally affected by magic and then put by God in complete control
of his mission, so also the Prophet Muhammad could be mentally affected for a short
period with God subsequently giving him the upper hand on the forces of evil.
The story would be problematic from a religious
point of view only if we assume that magic affected the Prophet mentally and
it lasted for a long period. This brings us to the second of the questions
raised above: How long the alleged effect lasted?
In most of the narrations there is no mention of
the duration of the effect. Panipati in
his tafsir of Surah 113 says that “in one tradition it is
mentioned that [the Prophet] remained in this condition for six months”. He
gives no source or isnad. Conflicting with the tradition
mentioned by Panipati, al-Suhayli says: “I did not find in the well-known books
how long the Messenger of God stayed under the influence of this magic before
being cured. Then I came across the statement in Jami‘ of Ma‘mar bin Rashid.
Ma‘mar related from al-Zuhri who said: The Messenger of God was cast a magical
spell for a year when he imagined that he was doing a thing when he was not.”
(Ibn Hisham, p. 362, n. 3). Again we do not find a complete isnad:
two links are missing between al-Zuhri and the Prophet.
Thus by looking at the transmission (al-naql) of the story we can see that
mention of a long duration of the Prophet’s condition is not a part of the
earliest story but is a secondary speculation. The same conclusion can be
reached from a rational point of view (al-‘aql).
For, had the Prophet’s alleged condition lasted for a long time and affected
the Prophet generally, it would have been noticed not only by ‘Aishah but also
by the Prophet’s other wives and even by many Companions. Non-Muslims would
also have not only noticed it but exploited it to discredit the Prophet, just
as many Christian missionaries are doing even today. We should expect the
Qur`an to address the matter. At the very least we should expect it to be found
in narrations from many different Companions. But with complete isnad
the story comes mostly from ‘Aishah, and sometimes from Zayd bin Arqam and ‘Abd
Allah bin ‘Abbas.
Finally, let us consider our third question: How
was the effect of magic removed? In most narrations the Prophet is cured when
he is informed by God through angels about the objects used in the magical
spell and when those objects are uncovered. This does appear to give too much
respect to magical practices, but one can easily argue as follows: The true
prophets like other human beings are often subject to the laws that God has
established in the universe. This is why sometimes they fall into difficulties.
On occasions God helps them out of difficulties by his direct intervention alone.
But often to get out of difficulties they have to work, completely or in part, within
the laws of nature. The unseen world, to which magic belongs, has its own laws
and in principle there is no problem to think that, in order to get out of a
temporary difficulty caused by invisible forces of evil, the prophets may
sometimes have to work, completely or in part, within the laws operating in the
unseen world.
Thus the story
of the bewitchment of the Prophet in its earlier forms is not a problem for the
prophethood of Muhammad (salla allah ‘alay hi wa sallam).
This is, of course, all the more true, if, as I believe, the story is a
fabrication to begin with.