Force non-Muslims to the side of the road?

 Abu Amina Elias February 15, 2016 

In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful

Whenever we read a narration about the Prophet, we need to understand it within its historical, theological, and moral context. One such narration concerns how to treat the people of the Book, Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims when using the road:

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

لاَ تَبْدَءُوا الْيَهُودَ وَلاَ النَّصَارَى بِالسَّلاَمِ فَإِذَا لَقِيتُمْ أَحَدَهُمْ فِي طَرِيقٍ فَاضْطَرُّوهُ إِلَى أَضْيَقِهِ

Do not initiate greetings with the Jews and Christians. When you meet any of them in the road, then make him take its narrowest path.

Source: Sahih Muslim 2167, Grade: Sahih

On the surface, it seems like the Muslims are being commanded to be rude to others. However, the Prophet made this statement to his companions when they were departing to confront a Jewish tribe that had just violated their peace treaty.

Ibn Al-Qayyim comments on this tradition, saying:

لَكِنْ قَدْ قِيلَ إِنَّ هَذَا كَانَ فِي قَضِيَّةٍ خَاصَّةٍ لَمَّا سَارُوا إِلَى بَنِي قُرَيْظَةَ

It is said that this was in a specific situation, when they were marching to the tribe of Qurayzah

Source: Zād al-Ma’ād 2/388

Authentic versions of this tradition as narrated by other companions make this context clear.

Abu Basrah reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

إِنَّا غَادُونَ عَلَى يَهُودَ فَلَا تَبْدَءُوهُمْ بِالسَّلَامِ فَإِذَا سَلَّمُوا عَلَيْكُمْ فَقُولُوا وَعَلَيْكُمْ

Verily, I will depart against the Jews in the morning, so do not greet them with peace and if they greet you with peace, then say: And upon you.

Source: Musnad Ahmad 26695, Grade: Sahih

This narration is authentic according to Al-Haythami in Majma’ al-Zawāʼid 8/44 and Al-Albani in Irwā’ al-Ghalīl 1275.

Abu Abdur Rahman Al-Juhani reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

إِنِّي رَاكِبٌ غَدًا إِلَى الْيَهُودِ فَلَا تَبْدَءُوهُمْ بِالسَّلَامِ فَإِذَا سَلَّمُوا عَلَيْكُمْ فَقُولُوا وَعَلَيْكُمْ

Verily, I am riding against the Jews tomorrow, so do not greet them with peace and if they greet you with peace, then say: And upon you.

Source: Sunan Ibn Majah 3699, Grade: Sahih

This narration is authentic according to Al-Albani in Sahih al-Jami’ 2464 and Sahih Ibn Majah 2999.

From these, we can understand that the command to not initiate peaceful greetings and to not accommodate their path was specific to these hostile tribes. In another context, the companions would greet non-Muslims with peace. The Muslims in this case were simply told to continue marching on their way without stopping to accommodate these people.

Even so, it was not permissible for the Muslims to harm these non-Muslims while they walked along the path.

Al-Qurtubi comments on this tradition, saying:

وَلَيْسَ الْمَعْنَى إِذَا لَقِيتُمُوهُمْ فِي طَرِيقٍ وَاسِعٍ فَأَلْجِئُوهُمْ إِلَى حَرْفِهِ حَتَّى يَضِيقَ عَلَيْهِمْ لِأَنَّ ذَلِكَ أَذًى لَهُمْ وَقَدْ نُهِينَا عَنْ أَذَاهُمْ بِغَيْرِ سَبَبٍ

The meaning is not that if we meet them on a wide road we should force them to take its narrowest edge, as this would be harming them and we have been prohibited from harming them without a just cause.

Source: Fatḥ al-Bārī 11/40

It is not allowed in Islam to harm anyone or anything without a just cause. Letting them take the narrow part of the road was simply a means to avoid honoring them, since at the time their tribe was showing hostility towards the Muslims.

Ibn Hajar comments on this tradition, saying:

مَعْنَاهُ لَا تَتَنَحَّوْا لَهُمْ عَنِ الطَّرِيقِ الضَّيِّقِ إِكْرَامًا لَهُمْ وَاحْتِرَامًا

It means do not give up your section of the road to them in order to honor and respect them.

Source: Fatḥ al-Bārī 11/40

If we were to honor such people at the time of their wrongdoing, that would only embolden them to commit more crimes. A little harshness in this context is actually an act of love and mercy because it is meant to discourage their bad behavior. This is called tough love.

In general, Islam encourages us to be kind and gentle even to those who are very rude to us, as long as they are not violent against us.

Aisha reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ رَفِيقٌ يُحِبُّ الرِّفْقَ فِي الْأَمْرِ كُلِّهِ

Verily, Allah is kind and he loves kindness in all matters.

Source: Sahih Bukhari 6528, Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi

The Prophet made this statement about a group of Jews that cursed him inside his own home, telling his wife Aisha to be kind and not to curse them in retaliation.

In sum, the tradition about not initiating greetings with non-Muslims and making them use the narrow path was specific to the context of hostilities. It does not mean non-Muslims should be harmed or that we should be rude to them as they use the road. Rather, the general rule in Islam is to be kind and gentle with others.

Success comes from Allah, and Allah knows best.

Unreliable Hadith about Sunset in the Spring of Warm Water

نشرت بواسطة: Waqar Akbar Cheema 12:35 PM في 'arsh , 3991 , abdullah bin ahmad , abu dawud , abu dharr , murky , spring , sun , Throne , warm , water 7 تعليقات

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

Analysis of the reliability of the alleged report about the sun setting in a spring of warm water according to the Holy Prophet- peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

There is a Hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud that has been brought up by some anti-Islamic polemicists.

The narration:

The narration along with the chain of narrators goes as;

Yazid bin Harun- Sufyan bin Husain- Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah- Ibrahim (b. Yazid al-Taymi)- Yazid al-Taymi- Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 3991)

Related narrations:

In Musnad Ahmad these words are part of a longer narration reported through same chain of narrators;

Abu Dharr narrated, “Once I was with the Prophet riding a donkey on which there was a saddle or a (piece of) velvet. That was at sunset. He said to me, ‘O Abu Dharr, do you know where this (sun) sets?’ I said, ‘Allah and His Messenger know better.’ He said, ‘It sets in a spring of murky water, (then) it goes and prostrates before its Lord, the Exalted in Might and the Ever-Majestic, under the Throne. And when it is time to go out, Allah allows it to go out and thus it rises. But, when He wants to make it rise where it sets, He locks it up. The sun will then say, “O my Lord, I have a long distance to run.” Allah will say, “Rise where you have set.” That (will take place) when no (disbelieving) soul will get any good by believing then.’” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 21459 al-Risala ed.)

This narration is quite similar to the narration found in many hadith works including Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim etc. except the words “It sets in a spring of warm water.”

In Sahih Bukhari it goes as;

Sufyan (al-Thawri)- Al-A’mash- Ibrahim (b. Yazid al-Taymi)- Yazid al-Taymi- Narrated Abu Dharr: The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Messenger know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: "And the sun is quickly proceeding towards its destination. That is the designing of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing. " (36.38) (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Hadith 421)

The significant difference is of the words “it sets in a spring of warm/murky water.”

Analysis of the chains of narrators:

From Abu Darr, it both ways i.e. with and without the words under consideration, it narrated by Yazid al-Taymi and from him by his son Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi. From Ibrahim it is narrated by six different narrators;

1- Al-A’mash: And from him at least five people narrate it. See Sahih Bukhari etc.

2- Yunus bin ‘Ubaid: And from him at least three narrators report this narration. See Sahih Muslim etc.

3- Musa bin al-Musayyab al-Thaqafi: From him it is narrated by Abdah bin Sulayman, See Al-‘Uzmah of Abu al-Shaykh al-Asbahani 4/1189

4- Abdul A’la al-Taymi: The narrator down from him is Mis’ar, See Hilyah al-Awliya 5/89

5- Harun bin Sa’d: Abdul Ghaffar bin al-Qasim narrates from him. See Al-‘Uzmah of Abu al-Shaykh al-Asbahani 4/1191 and Al-Tabarani’s Mu’jam Al-Awst, Hadith 4470

6- Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah: The sole narrator down from him is Sufyan bin Husain, See Sunan Abu Dawud, Musnad Ahmad, Mustadrak al-Hakim, Musnad al-Bazzar etc.

Of all these various routes from Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi, it is only through Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah that these words “It sets in a spring of warm water” are narrated.

In short, there are six narrators reporting the hadith from Ibrahim bin Yazid, and only one of them i.e. Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah quotes the particular words. And to add to the trouble there is again only one narrator down from him and he is Sufyan bin Husain whereas parallel to Sufyan there are at least eleven people narrating the hadith without these words on the authority of five different people narrating from Ibrahim bin Yazid.

Following flow diagram for the above detail gives the pictorial display the strangeness of these words. Down from Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi only the narrators with red outline for their names give the words under consideration against loads of other narrators who do not report these words.




The narration is anomalous (shaadh) and defective (mu’allal):

This fact alone is enough to make the narration dubious. No doubt both Al-Hakam and Sufyan are per se trustworthy narrators but because on their respective levels they go against much reliable and numerous narrators. Such a narration reported this way is termed as “shaadh” i.e. anomalous.

Carefully read the definition of anomalous (shaadh) hadith given by Ibn al-Salah (d. 643 A.H.) in his magnus opus, “Kitab Ma’rifat ‘anwa’ ‘ilm al-Hadith” translated under the title “An Introduction to the Science of Hadith”;

“… the anomalous hadith is the one which a reliable transmitter relates and which is in conflict with what other people relate.” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, Translated by Dr. Eerik Dickinson, Garnet Publishing Ltd. Berkshire 2006 p.57)

Also see the definition of defective (mu’allal) hadith given by Ibn Salah;

“A defective hadith is one in which a defect impugning its soundness is detected, although it outwardly appears to be free of the defect. That may apply to an isnad made up of reliable transmitters which outwardly seems to fulfill the conditions of soundness. Someone being alone in transmitting the hadith as well as others contradicting him aid in catching the defect.” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, p.67)

And when a report or a part of it becomes “shaadh” it ceases to be a sahih (sound) report. For this the definition of a “Sahih hadith” will help.

Hafiz Ibn Salah writes;

“The sahih (sound) hadith is a “supported” hadith (al-hadith al-musnad), the isnad of which coheres continuously through the transmission of one upright and accurate person from another up to its point of termination. The sound hadith can be neither anomalous (shaadh) nor defective (mu’allal),” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, p.5)

So merely being “sahih al-isnaad” is not enough for the report itself to be sahih.

Therefore, the very fact that Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah’s narrates differently from five other narrators reporting it on the authority of Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi, makes the narration “shaadh” (anomalous) which is a kind of weak (da’if) reports.

But the trouble with the narration does not end here. Down from Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah, Sufyan bin Husain is also unique in narrating these words whereas the number of narrators down from narrators other than Al-Hakam narrating it from Ibrahim al-Taymi is at least eleven. There is not a single supporting narrator for Sufyan either.

Hafiz Al-Bazzar (d. 292 A.H.) after giving this narration writes;

“We do not know anyone other than Sufyan bin Husain reporting it through the chain: Al-Hakam bin ‘Utayba –Ibrahim- his father- Abu Dharr, while Yunus bin ‘Ubayd, Suleman Al-A’mash and Harun bin Sa’d have also narrated it from Ibrahim.” (Musnad Al-Bazzar- Bahr al-Zakhkhar, under Hadith 4010)

And this is important, not only because it adds more to the oddity of the narration, but also because Sufyan bin Husain though generally considered authentic was also criticized by few scholars. This criticism does not harm his general narrations but becomes significant when he goes out of the way and narrates what other narrators from the same original source do not.

Muhammad ibn Sa’d said about him: “He was reliable (but) he made many mistakes in his narrations.” (Tabaqat al-Kubra, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyya, Beirut, 1990, vol.7 p.227 No. 3417)

Conclusion:

These details make it quite clear that according to rules of reporting it is not right to attribute these words to the Messenger of Allah- on him be the peace and blessings of Allah.

Apparently, the words from Qur’an 18:86 were confused and appended to the hadith that had no link to the ayah whatsoever. The narrator failed to understand the real significance of the verse and the hadith and for apparent semblance he confused the two.

The verse from the Holy Qur’an i.e. surah 18 ayah 86 is simply about how the sunset appeared to Zulqarnain and even the classical Muslim scholars understood it like that. The detailed explanation of it is found HERE.

As to the meanings of the Hadith of Abu Dharr- may Allah be pleased with him- about the sun prostrating under the Throne (‘arsh) of Allah, visit THIS PAGE for explanation.

So the excitement of the missionaries is in vain. Pity!

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Hadith

It was narrated that 'Aishah said:

“Once of the things that Allah revealed in the the Qur'an and then abrogated was that nothing makes marriage prohibited except ten breastfeedings or five well-known (breastfeedings).”

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَارِثِ بْنُ عَبْدِ الصَّمَدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْوَارِثِ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْقَاسِمِ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَمْرَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ كَانَ فِيمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ ثُمَّ سَقَطَ لاَ يُحَرِّمُ إِلاَّ عَشْرُ رَضَعَاتٍ أَوْ خَمْسٌ مَعْلُومَاتٌ ‏.‏

Grade

: Sahih (Darussalam)

English reference	: Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1942
Arabic reference	: Book 9, Hadith 2018

From <https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah/9>

They insinuate that this tradition (which is not even authentic) demonstrates that the reason why the verse for stoning the Adulterer is not with us in the Qur‟an today is because the sheep ate up the paper it was written on. This argument is absurd for the following reasons: · There is no reason to believe that this was the only piece of paper that had this verse written on it. · There are hadiths which show the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) refusing to approve the writing down of that verse, due to it being abrogated from the Qur‟anic text (to be preserved through the Sunnah). Umar (ra) asked "'O Messenger of Allah, let the verse about stoning be written for me.' He (the Prophet) said, 'I can't do this.'" (Sunan Al-Kubra Baihiqi 8/211 & Sunan Al-Kubra Nasai Hadith 7148. Albani (in Sahiha 6/412) said Baihiqi pointed to its authenticity) · The companions already had this verse memorized (ref Saheeh Muslim, Book 017, Number 4194). Unless they want to argue that this sheep also “ate the memories” of the companions who memorized those verses, they have no arguments left to to advance.

If the sheep eat the verse of the Quran, how did Umar Bin Khattab Ra manage to know the verse? Was that the only hard copy that several scribes had written.

'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (Peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession. (Sahih Muslim Book 17 Hadith 4194)

Thought you said the verse from the Quran was missing? From the above Hadith The companions already had this verse memorized. Unless they want to argue that this sheep also “ate the memories” of the companions who memorized those verses, they have no arguments left to to advance.

Maybe you can tell us which sheep eat verse from Matthew 18:11 and Acts 8:37

It was narrated that 'Aishah said:

“Once of the things that Allah revealed in the the Qur'an and then abrogated was that nothing makes marriage prohibited except ten breastfeedings or five well-known (breastfeedings).”

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَارِثِ بْنُ عَبْدِ الصَّمَدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْوَارِثِ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْقَاسِمِ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَمْرَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ كَانَ فِيمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ ثُمَّ سَقَطَ لاَ يُحَرِّمُ إِلاَّ عَشْرُ رَضَعَاتٍ أَوْ خَمْسٌ مَعْلُومَاتٌ ‏.‏

Grade

: Sahih (Darussalam)

English reference	: Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1942
Arabic reference	: Book 9, Hadith 2018

Did the Pharaoh of the Exodus Drown in the Red Sea (Exodus 14:28)?

The most conservative scholarship considers that the pharaoh of Egypt at the time of the Exodus (c. 1446 BC) was Amenhotep II (1450-1424 BC). The overwhelming biblical and historical evidence is that he did not die with his army in pursuit of Israel.

In Psalm 136:15, we find that God "overthrew Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea." The Hebrew word translated here as "overthrew" is na'ar, also found in Exodus 14:27. It does not mean "to drown" or "to toss or tumble about as in the water" as some have attempted to assert. It simply means "shook off" as is mentioned in the margins of many Bibles and in the Brown, Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon. (Nehemiah 5:13 illustrates how na'ar should be translated: "Then I shook out the fold of my garment. . . .") Therefore, these verses simply say that God shook off the Egyptians, including Pharaoh, from their pursuit of the Israelites. These scriptures say nothing of who was drowned.

In Exodus 14:28, the waters cover "all the army of Pharaoh," but Pharaoh himself is not mentioned. Exodus 15:19 supports this: "For the horses of Pharaoh went with his chariots and his horsemen into the sea, and the LORD brought back the waters of the sea upon them." Naturally, the horses and horsemen of Egypt were considered to be Pharaoh's. But this verse does not say that Pharaoh's personal horse, or that Pharaoh himself, drowned in the sea.

This is significant because the death of such an important person would almost certainly have been given special note in the Bible. The Old Testament contains many clear references to the deaths of enemy kings, most of them much less important than this pharaoh. Archaeology proves that Amenhotep II, if he is the Pharaoh of the Exodus, ruled for about 22 more years.

Daat Zkenim commentary

לא נשאר בהם עד אחד, “not a single one of them remained.” The word עד is sometimes used as inclusive statement whereas other times it is used as exclusion, i.e. in this instance the meaning is that only a single Egyptian survived this drowning. The survivor was Pharaoh himself. We read in Psalms 106,11: אחד מהם לא נותר, “not one of them was left.” How do we reconcile this? The Torah refers to all of Pharaoh’s soldiers having perished. He himself was forced to survive and bear the disgrace of his defeat.

Tur HaAroch

לכל חיל פרעה, “of Pharaoh’s entire army;” according to Rashi these words are superfluous, however, this is not an uncommon occurrence in our Scriptures. Nachmanides writes that in this instance these words are not superfluous, but that the meaning of the words לכל חיל פרעה is that part of the army described thus was the infantry, as opposed to the cavalry who were riding in chariots. The latter Pharaoh had taken with him immediately he heard about the Israelites having made a U turn at Baal Tzefon, whereas the infantry took longer to catch up with the cavalry.

Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 14:28:1

(Exodus 14:28) "And the waters returned and covered the chariot, etc.": even that of Pharaoh. These are the words of R. Yehudah, it being written (Ibid. 15:4) "the chariots of Pharaoh and his host, etc." R. Nechemiah says: except for that of Pharaoh, it being written (Ibid. 9:16) "But, because of this I have preserved you." Others say: Pharaoh descended last and he drowned, viz. (Ibid. 15:19) "For the horse of Pharaoh came with its chariot and its riders into the sea, and the L rd turned back upon them the waters of the sea."

Did Pharaoh accompany his army when they went after the Israelites? If so, did he die with them?

Answer:

We read in Exodus 14 that Pharaoh personally led his army against the Jews.

There are differing opinions in the Midrash1 concerning his fate. Some say that he drowned in the Red Sea together with his army, while others opine that he survived the miraculous event. He survived in order to retell a firsthand account of the miracles and wonders that G‑d performed.

According to one Midrash,2 he made his way to Nineveh, Assyria, where he became king—the same king who when hearing the prophet Jonah's message from G‑d foretelling Nineveh's destruction, encouraged all his subjects to repent in order to avert the divine decree. Apparently he had learned his lesson.

Wishing you a happy and kosher Passover!

Yours truly,

Rabbi Menachem Posner

FOOTNOTES

1.

Mechilta Beshalach 2:6.

2.

Yalkut Shimoni Exodus 176.

By Menachem Posner

yes this is specific In Psalm 136:15, we find that God "overthrew Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea." The Hebrew word translated here as "overthrew" is na'ar, also found in Exodus 14:27. It does not mean "to drown" or "to toss or tumble about as in the water" as some have attempted to assert. It simply means "shook off" as is mentioned in the margins of many Bibles and in the Brown, Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon. (Nehemiah 5:13 illustrates how na'ar should be translated: "Then I shook out the fold of my garment. . . .") Therefore, these verses simply say that God shook off the Egyptians, including Pharaoh, from their pursuit of the Israelites. These scriptures say nothing of who was drowned.

 

In Exodus 14:28, the waters cover "all the army of Pharaoh," but Pharaoh himself is not mentioned. Exodus 15:19 supports this: "For the horses of Pharaoh went with his chariots and his horsemen into the sea, and the LORD brought back the waters of the sea upon them." Naturally, the horses and horsemen of Egypt were considered to be Pharaoh's. But this verse does not say that Pharaoh's personal horse, or that Pharaoh himself, drowned in the sea.