Saturday, 22 April 2023

Does Hadith condemn the infant girls buried alive?

 Does Hadith condemn the infant girls buried alive?

D

Waqar Akbar Cheema

[divider]

Among the hadith reports with apparently problematic meanings is one related as;

“الوائدة والموءودة في النار”

Usually it is understood as:

“The woman who buries her daughter alive (al-wa’idah), and the girl who is buried (al-ma’udah) will both enter Hell.”

As such, without any context, the hadith is recorded in Sunan of Abu Dawud on the authority of ‘Abdullah b. Mas‘ud,[1] and has been deemed authentic by a number of scholars.[2]

In view of the fact that this appears to contradict the principle laid down by the Qur’an that no one will have to bear the burden of sins of others[3] and more specifically the fact that Qur’an itself alludes to the poor little girls buried alive by certain Arabs before Islam implying that they would be putting to question people responsible for such atrocities on the Day of Judgment rather than being tormented themselves,[4] it has evoked different responses from Muslim scholars since early centuries of Islam.

To some this hadith talks about the burier and the buried in a specific incident and thus its implication is restricted to a specific girl buried alive and not all such girls.[5] Some have further added that the specific girl meant was not even infant or a small child rather she had come of age though some versions of the hadith suggest her brothers thought otherwise. Others have argued that like the child killed by Khidr in the story mentioned in Qur’an the specific girl, even if small, had had predilections of disbelief like her mother. All these interpretation have the undertone of restricting the implications of the apparently general wording of the Prophet (ﷺ) to the specific case.

A few scholars, nevertheless, take a more ingenious approach of parting with the apparent meanings of the hadith suggesting the word “al-ma’udah” does not actually refer to the one buried alive rather to the one for whom or on whose behest (or even consent) she was buried. Accordingly, they imply that the actual construction was supposed to be “al-ma’udah laha” – the adjunct clause (sila), laha,  being elided (mahzuf).

Both these ways of restricting the implications of hadith to the specific incident and the ingenious interpretation appear to be borne of apologetic concerns or seem altogether desperate. This, however, is only before we see more detailed versions of the hadith like the one preserved by Ahmad b. Hanbal in his well-known Musnad.

عن سلمة بن يزيد الجعفي، قال: انطلقت أنا وأخي إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، قال: قلنا: يا رسول الله، إن أمنا مليكة كانت تصل الرحم، وتقري الضيف، وتفعل، وتفعل هلكت في الجاهلية، فهل ذلك نافعها شيئا؟ قال: ” لا ” قال: قلنا: فإنها كانت وأدت أختا لنا في الجاهلية، فهل ذلك نافعها شيئا؟ قال: ” الوائدة والموءودة في النار، إلا أن تدرك الوائدة الإسلام ، فيعفو الله عنها “

Salama b. Yazid al-Ju‘fi said: I and my brother went to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and asked, “Messenger of Allah! Our mother Mulaika kept the ties of kinship, honoured the guest and did so and so [good deeds] and she died in the times of ignorance [before Islam]; will her good deeds benefit her?” He said, “No.” We [then] asked, “In the times of ignorance, however, she had our sister buried alive, will that benefit her [i.e. our sister]?”[6] The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Al-Wa’idah and al-Ma’udah will enter Hell except if al-Wa’idah lived to accept Islam for then Allah would forgive her.”[7]

A few facts need to be delineated before we set on to appreciate their significance with regards to meanings of the hadith.

1) The men asking the Prophet (ﷺ) were inquisitive about the fate of their deceased relatives i.e. their mother and sister. First they asked about their mother and learnt that her good deeds would not help her in life hereafter as she had died before accepting Islam.

2) Next they asked about their sister that she was buried alive wondering if this would benefit her in the life hereafter. In mentioning the fate of their sister, however, they mentioned that it was their mother who had her buried, a fact they had not mentioned while asking about their mother moments before.

3) Upon this the Prophet (ﷺ) said, “The woman who buried her alive (al-wa’idah) and al-ma’udah [laha] will both enter Hell” following it with a clarification that “except if the one who buried her lived to accept Islam for then Allah would forgive her.”

4) As generally understood “the woman who buried her alive” refers to the mother of the girl but here the clarifying remark of the Prophet (ﷺ) that “if she lived to accept Islam” tells us that it was not meant about the mother of the girl for it had already been mentioned that the mother of the girl had died before Islam. This in turn tells us that the subject of the burying act here was not the mother of girl buried but some other woman.

5) In view of pt. 4, therefore, we can conclude that al-ma’udah here meant the mother of the girl whose active involvement in the heinous act was mentioned by her sons.

Accordingly, we see that the most significant part of the narration are the clarifying remarks of the Prophet (ﷺ) “except if the one who buried her lived to accept Islam for then Allah would forgive her” because alongwith the prior mention of the death of mother of the girl they are evidently about a woman other than the mother of the girl which in turn leads us to the understanding that the “al-ma’udah [laha]” in fact refers to mother of the girl who was equally responsible for the heinous crime.

In view of the details above we can conclude that:

  1. “al-ma’udah [laha]” here refers to the mother of the girl buried alive for she had her buried, and “al-wa’idah” refers to a woman burier of the infant girl who was someone besides her mother.
  2. the remarks about two women entering Hell had a specific context and they do not relate to the infant girl buried alive.

This interpretation is not the brainchild of this author rather a number of scholars from the past centuries have mentioned this. Al-Qadi al-Baidawi (d. 685/1286), for instance, wrote;

ولعل المراد بالوائدة: القابلة, وبالموؤدة: الموؤدة لها وهي أم الطفل, فحذفت الصلة, إذ كان من ديدنهم أن المرأة إذا أخذها الطلق حفر لها حفرة عميقة, فجلست عليها, والقابلة وراءها تترقب الولد, فإن ولدت ذكرا أمسكت, وإن ولدت أنثى ألقتها في تلك الحفرة, وأهالت عليها التراب

Perhaps, ‘the burier’ (al-wa’idah) refers to the midwife, and ‘al-ma’udah’ to the one for whom burying was done i.e. the mother of the infant. The adjunct (‘for whom’) was thus omitted. It was their custom that when a woman would be in labour pains a deep hole was dug for her on which she was made to sit. Meanwhile the midwife remained behind her waiting for the child. If the mother bore a boy the midwife would hold him and if the mother bore a girl she would through her in that hole and put mud on her. [8]

Others who gave this interpretation include al-Tibi (d. 743/1342),[9] Ibn al-Malak (d. 854/1450),[10] al-Manawi (d.1031/1622),[11] al-Mazhari (d. 1225/1810),[12] al-Alusi (d. 1270/1854),[13]and al-Sahanpuri (d. 1346/1927).[14] More recently al-Albani (d.1420/1999)[15] adopted a similar interpretation.

This interpretation is further corroborated by the fact that some others narrations of the report, albeit those with weaker chain of narrators, mention by the way of condemnation only the mother of the infant buried alive and no one else.[16]

Hadith tradition as great and generally careful it has been is nevertheless a human endeavour and at times there is a possibility for some details or nuances to a talk being missed, as is evident in comparison between the narrations of it preserved in the works of Abu Dawud and Ahmad b. Hanbal. It is, therefore, only natural to view isolated reports in tandem with other reports and established ideals. In another hadith recorded by both Abu Dawud in his Sunan and Ahmad b. Hanbal in his Musnad, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) is reported to have made a very general announcement;

عن حسناء بنت معاوية الصريميه، قالت: حدثنا عمي، قال: قلت للنبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم-: من في الجنة؟ قال: “النبي في الجنة، والشهيد في الجنة، والمولود في الجنة، والوئيد في الجنة”

Narrated Hasana’ daughter of Mu‘awiyah: She reported on the authority of her paternal uncle: I asked the Prophet (ﷺ): Who are in Paradise? He replied: Prophets are in Paradise, martyrs are in Paradise, infants are in Paradise and children buried alive are in Paradise.[17]

In light of all these details it is clear that rightful translation of the hadith conveying its actual meaning is,

The one who buried the infant girl and the one who had her buried will both enter Hell.

There is no condemnation of the infant girl buried alive.

[divider]

References & Notes:

[1] Al-Sijistani, Abu Dawud, al-Sunan, (Riyadh: Darussalam Publishers, 2007) Hadith 4717; see next note for further references

[2] The scholars who authenticated it include Ibn Hibban (al-Sahih, Resalah ed. Hadith 7480), Ibn ‘Asakir, (Mu‘jam al-Shuyukh, Dar al-Basha’ir, Hadith 1142) Ibn Kathir (Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Adhim, Dar al-Taiba, Vol.5, 60), al-Haithmi, (Majma‘ al-Zawa’id, Maktaba al-Qudsi, Hadith 466) al-Albani (Tahqiq Mishkat, Hadith 112), Muqbil b. Hadi al-Wadi‘I (al-Jami’ al-Sahih mimma laisa fi al-Sahihain, Hadith 1192, 4389) and Hussain Salim Asad, (Ed. Majm‘ al-Zawaid, Dar al-Ma’mun, Hadith 473)

[3] Qur’an 6:164; 17:15; 35:18; 39:7; 53:38

[4] Qur’an 81:8-9

[5] Ibn Hibban, al-Sahih, Hadith 7480; Ibn Hibban makes his understanding of the hadith clear through the heading of the chapter he places this hadith in; “Mention of the report that has put in doubt one who does not have profound knowledge that an infant girl buried alive shall surely enter Hell.”

[6] That it referred to the sister of the men asking is evident from the flow of the speech itself. Moreover, it is clearly mentioned in some narrations of the hadith; see al-Baghawi, Mu‘jam al-Sahaba, (Kuwait: Dar al-Bayan, 2000) Vol.3, 116; Ibn Manda, Ma‘rifah al-Sahaba, (Al-Ain: UAE University Press, 2006) 688, al-Baihaqi, al-Qada wa al-Qadr, (Riyadh: Maktaba al-Obeikan, 2000) Hadith 620; Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Tamhid lima fi al-Muwatta min al-Ma‘ani wa al-Asanid, (London: al-Furqan Publishers, 2017) Vol.11, 381; Ibn ‘Asakir, Mu‘jam al-Shuyukh, (Damascus: Dar al-Basha’ir) Hadith 1142

[7] Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 15932; etc. classified as sahih in Muqbil b. Hadi al-Wadi‘I, al-Jami’ al-Sahih mimma laisa fi al-Sahihain, (San‘a: Dar al-Athar, 2013) Hadith 1192, 4389

[8] Al-Baidawi, Qadi Nasir al-Din, Tuhfah al-Abrar Sharh Masabih al-Sunnah, (Kuwait: Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, 2012) Vol.1, 110

[9] Al-Tibi, Sharaf al-Din, al-Kashif ‘an Haqa’iq al-Sunan, (Makkah: Maktaba Nazar Mustafa al-Baz, 1997) Vol.2, 575

[10] Ibn al-Malak, Muhammad b. ‘Izz al-Din, Sharh Masabih al-Sunnah, (Beirut: Idara Thaqafah al-Islamiyya, 2012) Vol.1, 129

[11] Al-Manawi, Zain al-Din, Faid al-Qadir, (Cairo: Maktaba al-Tijariya, 1356 AH) Vol.6, 370

[12] Al-Mazhari, Thana Ullah, al-Tafsir al-Mazhari, (Quetta: Maktaba al-Rashidiya, 1412 AH) Vol.10, 206; after mentioning this interpretation he writes, “No other interpretation of the hadith is plausible.” (لا يمكن فى الحديث الا هذا التأويل)

[13] Al-Alusi, Shahab al-Din Mahmud, Ghra’ib al-Ightirab, (Baghdad: Maktaba al-Shabandar, 1327/1909) 105; al-Alusi mentions that on his trip to Samsun (Turkey) some of the notables of the city asked him about a few issues including reconciling the hadith under discussion with the idea that children of disbelievers will also enter Paradise. He says he mentioned this explanation and “with it the dust of doubts was cleared.” (وبهذا يتجلى الغبار)

[14] Al-Saharanpuri, Khalil Ahmad, Badhil al-Majhud fi Hal Sunan Abi Dawud, (India: Markaz Abu al-Hasan Nadvi, 2006) Vol.11

[15] Ale Nu‘man, Shadi b. Muhammad, Mawsu‘a  al-‘Allama al-Mujaddid al-‘Asr Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani, (San‘a: Markaz al- Nu‘man, 2010 ) Vol.5, 918 (Section 772); Video Clip of al-Albani where he mentioned this interpretation is also available hereto al-Albani the elided adjunct clause here was “lahu” making al-ma’udah refer to the father of the buried infant.

[16] From Ibn Mas‘ud through Abu Yaqzan ‘Uthman b. ‘Umair: Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 3787; al-Bazzar, al-Musnad, (Madina: Maktaba al-‘Ulum wa al-Hikam, 2009) Hadith 1534; al-Tabarani, Mu‘jam al-Kabir, (Cairo: Maktaba Ibn Taimiya, 1994) Hadith 10017; al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak, (Beirut: DKI, 1990) Hadith 3385; al- Asbahani, Abu Nu‘aim, Hilya al-Awliya, (Cairo: al-Sa‘adah, 1974) Vol.4, 238

From Ibn Abi Mulaika through Ibn Abi Laila: al-Dawlabi, al-Kuna wa al-Asma’, (Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm, 2000) Hadith 326

It may be argued that some versions of the report say “Your mother and the child she buried alive are in Hell” which does not take the interpretation offered here. In response it suffices to say that such versions come through exceptionally weak narrators such as through Jabir al-Ju‘fi as with al-Tahawi, Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, (Beirut: Resalah Publishers, 1994) Hadith 4365. Jabir al-Ju‘fi has been termed as liar by a number of early scholars. Accordingly Shu ‘aib al-Arnaut has graded the narration has “Extremely Weak.” Another such narration comes through Suleman b. Qarm b. Mu’adh who was a weak narrator and Yazid b. Murra whose trustworthiness is not attested. See al-Tiyalsi, al-Musnad, Edited by Dr. Muhammad al-Turki (Cairo: Dar Hijr, 1999) Hadith 1402. Moreover, such an addition is odd for it is not mentioned in other reports.

[17] Al-Sijistani, Abu Dawud, al-Sunan, Hadith 2521; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 20583, 20585; classified as hasan by Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani and Shu‘aib al-Arna’ut and sahih by Al-Albani. It is likewise reported authentically through Hasan al-Basri, see Ibn al-Ja‘d, ‘Ali, al-Musnad, (Beirut: Mo’assasah Nadir, 1990) Hadith 3063

Sunday, 9 April 2023

Refuting the Argument That The Prophet Claimed That The Corrupted Torah Was Revealed From God

 Refuting the Argument That The Prophet Claimed That The Corrupted Torah Was Revealed From God

 

by

 

Bassam Zawadi

 

 

Acknowledgement: Many thanks to brothers Moumen and Ayman bin Khaled for their assistance in writing this article

 

 

Christian Argument # 1:

 

The hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4434 shows that Muhammad respected the Torah and thus acknowledged its sanctity. This shows that Muhammad believed that the Torah at his time was not textually corrupted. 

My Response to Argument # 1:

 

Following is the hadith in question:

 

Sunan Abu Dawud

 

Book 38, Number 4434

 

Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar:

A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) to Quff. So he visited them in their school.

They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying: I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee.

He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi' (No. 4431).

 

My response will be divided into three sections...

 

1) Is the narration authentic?

2) If it is will it prove the argument of the missionaries?

3) Conclusion

  

Is the narration authentic?

 

This report is considered weak because one of its reporters is Hisham ibn Sa'd whose narratives are disturbed and corrupted according to many hadith critics like Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Ma'een, Abu Hatem, al-Nisa'ee, Ibn Sa'd, Ibn 'Adii, al-Madini, al-Hakim, al-'Aqili, Ibn Habban and others.

This is the reason why Ibn Hazm notes:

  

As for the report in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) took the Torah and said: "I believe in thee", it is a fabricated false report that did not reach us with proper chain of transmission (Ibn Hazm, Al-Fisal fe al-Milal wa al-Ahwaa wa al-Nihal, Volume 1, p. 237)

 

It is also worthy to note that this particular hadith has been reported through multiple chains of transmission; however, no one has ever mentioned the incident of the Prophet (saws) praising the Torah except in the report of Hisham ibn Sa'd from Zaid ibn Aslam.

  

If it is will it prove the argument of the missionaries?

 Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani said...

  

And so, some used this hadith as an indication to show that the Torah that the Jews presented, at that time, to the prophet was all sound and correct and not being altered. However, this argument is far from correctness because even saying: ((I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee.) cannot be used as this saying refers to the original Torah (which was revelaed to Moses) [Fathul Bari, Section of rulings of Ahlul dhimma]


As a result, even if we assume the Hadith classification is authentic (depending on some scholars such as Sheikh Al Albani who credited Hisham bin Sa'd although I still believe that the majority of the hadith scholars have spoken against him and thus their case is stronger) the saying of believing in the Torah and who revealed it does not mean that the Prophet peace be upon him was referring to what the Jews presented at all. The Prophet peace be upon him was referring to the original book (Torah) itself. It does not follow that the whole of the text of the Bible is being endorsed. The Prophet peace be upon him specifically followed this particular ruling without generalization i.e., he did not intend to follow all the rulings of the Torah, but only the judgment on stoning in that particular incident when the Jews approached him requesting for a judgment to punish the adulterers. So, while this tradition leaves no doubt that the passage in the Torah that prescribes the stoning of adulterers is authentic, it cannot be used to prove the authenticity of other passages. The additional sentence would only refer to the origin and the core of the Torah, not its textual status, as Imam Ibn Hajar has noted.

 

Conclusion

 

We may summarize the above as...

 

1) The Hadith has been narrated, as was explained above, from other authentic chains of transmission. However, the authentic narrations do not have the part ((I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee.)



2) The hadith which has this addition has been collected in Sunan Abu Dawud from the following chain of narrators: Ahmad Bin sa'ed Al-Hamadni - Ibn Wahb - Hisham Bin Sa'd - Zaid Bin Aslam - Ibn Umar.

3) This Hadith's classification differed because scholars of Hadith disagreed on Hisham Bin Sa'd. Therefore, the hadith is not reliable to use as evidence for there is doubt in regards to one of its narrators.

 

4) Even if the hadith was authentic it does not prove the claims of the missionary.

 

Christian Argument # 2:

 Muhammad is reported to have said that he believed in the Torah in the possession of the Jews at his time.

 

Rafi b. Haritha and Sallam b. Mishkam and Malik b. al-Sayf and Rafi b. Huraymila came to him [Muhammad] and said: 'Do you not allege that you follow the religion of Abraham and believe in the Torah which we have and testify that it is the truth from God?' He replied, 'certainly, but you have sinned and broken the covenant contained therein and concealed what you were ordered to make plain to men, and I dissociate myself from your sin.' They said, 'We hold by what we have. We live according to the guidance and the truth and we do not believe in you and we will not follow you.' So God sent down concerning them: 'Say, O Scripture folk, you have no standing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and what has been sent down from your Lord. What has been sent down to thee from they Lord will assuredly increase many of them in error and unbelief. But be not sad because of the unbelieving people.' (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], p. 268)

 

This shows that Muhammad believed that the Jews of his time had the textually uncorrupted Torah.

 

My Response to Argument # 2:

 

This problem arises because Alfred Guillaume did not translate a very crucial word properly. Below is the Arabic text of the story and the proper translation... 

 

عَنْ اِبْن عَبَّاس , قَالَ : جَاءَ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَرَافِع بْن حَارِثَة , وَسَلَّام بْن مِشْكَم , وَمَالِك بْن الصَّيْف , وَرَافِع بْن حُرَيْمِلَة , فَقَالُوا : يَا مُحَمَّد أَلَسْت تَزْعُم أَنَّك عَلَى مِلَّة إِبْرَاهِيم وَدِينه , وَتُؤْمِن بِمَا عِنْدنَا مِنْ التَّوْرَاة , وَتَشْهَد أَنَّهَا مِنْ اللَّه حَقّ ؟ فَقَالَ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ " بَلَى , وَلَكِنَّكُمْ أَحْدَثْتُمْ وَجَحَدْتُمْ مَا فِيهَا مِمَّا أُخِذَ عَلَيْكُمْ مِنْ  الْمِيثَاق , وَكَتَمْتُمْ مِنْهَا مَا أُمِرْتُمْ أَنْ تُبَيِّنُوهُ لِلنَّاسِ , وَأَنَا بَرِيءٌ مِنْ أَحْدَاثكُمْ ! " قَالُوا : فَإِنَّا نَأْخُذ بِمَا فِي أَيْدِينَا, فَإِنَّا عَلَى  الْحَقّ وَالْهُدَى , وَلَا نُؤْمِن بِك وَلَا نَتَّبِعك

  

Ibn Abbas reported: The Messenger of Allah peace be upon him and Rafi b. Haritha, and Sallam b. Mishkam and Malik b. al-Sayf and Rafi b. Huraymila and they (the Jews) said to them: O Muhammad, do you not allege that you follow the way of Abraham and his religion, and believe in what we have from the Torah and testify that it is the truth from Allah? The Messenger of Allah peace be upon him replied: Yes, however you have innovated and broken the covenant contained therein and concealed what you were ordered to make clear to people, and I dissociate myself from your innovations. They said, 'We hold by what we have. We live according to the guidance and the truth and we do not believe in you and we will not follow you.'

 

If this story does anything now, it only serves as evidence that the Jews have corrupted their scriptures. Notice how the crucial words "innovated" and "innovations" were not properly translated by Alfred Guillaume. He simply translated the words as "sinned" and "sins".

The fact that the Prophet (peace be upon him) accused the Jews of innovating shows that the Prophet (peace be upon him) accused them of adding to the religion things that did not belong there.

Now the Christian might reply back and say that it is possible that Muhammad peace be upon him intended to mean that the Jews innovated by adding their false interpretations. With all honesty, I will admit that this is true. However, the Christian must also be honest and equally admit that it is possible that the Prophet peace be upon him intended to say that the Jews innovated by adding false verses into the text of the Torah.

Just by examining this narration alone, we can't know what the Prophet's intention was. The story is ambiguous when examined alone. Since it is ambiguous Christians have no right to use this story as a proof that the Prophet peace be upon him affirmed the textual purity of the Torah since the story allows for the possibility that the Prophet intended to say that the Jews textually corrupted their scriptures.

So the possible interpretation of the story is that when the Jews asked the Prophet if he believed that what they have in the Torah is the truth from God he said "Yes" because he believed that there was truth in it, however the Jews added their innovations to it.

As long as this interpretation is possible, Christians can't use this narration as evidence.

What we must do is look at other Islamic sources to assure ourselves that Islam does teach that the Jews corrupted their Torah. (See here)

Sunday, 4 December 2022

Hadith, ‘Ajwa Dates and Science

 Hadith, ‘Ajwa Dates and Science

Other day a person, seemingly a Christian polemicist left me an email, challenging me on something which he thought was really a big deal. He quoted the following Hadith:

Narrated Sa’d: The Prophet said, "If somebody takes some 'Ajwa dates every morning, he will not be effected by poison or magic on that day till night." (Another narrator said seven dates). (Sahih Bukhari)

And then hurled the challenge;

are you today ready to take this simple challenge and eat 7 Ajwa dates and then drink poison and survive ?

The response:

The unfortunate fact is that most people in our time think that just reading any translation of Hadith texts, they can lay hands upon, is quite enough to have a full grasp of it and they find themselves worthy enough to comment. The practice might have had some justification if Hadith -or for that matter any classical Islamic text- was in some dead language hardly known to even the followers of the religion as it happened with Judaism and Christianity.

A basic principle in studying any historical narration is to understand the environment and context in which it originated. While it may not be possible to find details as to when and why was some particular words were uttered, another reasonable way is to see the complementing narrations before looking to reach a conclusion.

Sa’d told of hearing Allah’s Messenger say, “He who has a morning meal of seven ‘ajwa dates will not suffer harm that day through toxins or magic.” (Bukhari, Hadith 5327 and Muslim, Hadith 3814)

‘Aisha reported Allah’s Messenger as saying, “The ‘ajwah dates of al-‘Aliya contain healing, and they are an antidote (when taken as) first thing in the morning.” (Muslim, Hadith 3815)

‘Aisha reported Allah’s Messenger as saying, “The ‘ajwah dates of al-‘Aliya taken as the first thing in the morning, in the state of fasting; contain healing for all (kinds of) magic or toxins.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 23592)

Al-‘Aliya is the named applied to some villages a few miles east of Medina.

Narrated ‘Urwah: ‘Aisha used to order to make a habit of or taking in regular intervals seven ‘ajwah dates, in the state of fasting for seven mornings. (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba, Hadith 23945)

Now considering all these narrations it becomes clear that the benefits mentioned are for link to certain specifics.
1- It is about 'Ajwa dates from al-Aliya, a particular locality near al-Medina
2- The benefit is for eating them early in the morning breaking the night fast with it
3- It is for the one who eats them regularly as Aisha (RA) used to instruct people. Her instruction matters for she is one of the narrators of the Hadith in question.
Now let me explain a few things:

"The Poison/Toxin": The word actually used is "summ" which means, poison or toxin. The problem is some people think it is about instantly killing poisonous stuff. However the fact mention in Hadith that it benefits when taken as the first thing early in the morning and on regular basis itself establishes that it is about toxins, which are indeed poisonous and harmful to the body. Also see the following evidence.

clip_image002

Al-Mawarid Arabic-English Dictionary Dar el-Elm Lilmalayin, Beirut 1995 p.642

Ibn Qayyim in his Tibb al-Nabawi writes: "For the people of al-Medina, dried dates are their staple like wheat is to other people. In addition, dried dates from the area of al-Aliyah in al-Medina are one of the best kinds of dates ... Dates are a type of fruit that is also used for its nutritional and medicinal value, being favorable for most bodies and for their role in strengthening the natural heat. Moreover, dates do not produce harmful wastes or excrement like other types of food and fruits. Rather, dates preserve the body wastes from being spoiled and from rotting, especially for those who are used to eating dried dates." (Healing with the Medicine of the Prophet, Translated by Abd el-Qader bin Abd el-Azeez, Dar al-Ghadd al-Gadeed, al-Mansoura (Egypt), 2003 p.121)

Here are a couple of more narrations,

Narrated Sa'd: I suffered from an illness. The Messenger of Allah –may Allah bless him- came to pay a visit to me. He put his hands on my chest and I felt its coolness at my heart. He said: “You are a man suffering from heart sickness. Go to al-Harith ibn Kaladah, brother of Thaqif. He is a man who gives medical treatment. He should take seven ajwah dates of Medina and grind them with their kernels, and then put them into your mouth.” (Sunan Abu DawudHadith 3875)

It is reported, though through a weak chain, that ‘Ali –may Allah be pleased with him- said: “And whoever eats seven ‘ajwa dates every day it kills every disease in the stomach.” (Kanzul Ummal, Hadith 28472)

These show that they have healing effect against heart ailment and problems of the stomach.
And we have scientific evidence that dates protect arteries and lower the risks of heart attack. Cholesterol that causes many heart problems itself is a toxin. Moreover some of the ingredients of the dates are protective against digestive system related problems, e.g. dietary fiber helps eliminate human intestinal toxic substances, researchers suggest.

Magic: As to magic, there are two possibilities. If it is literally a reference to magic as it was and is known then we cannot actually say much about it in the light of modern scientific research. Western science has, to the best of my knowledge, only skeptical notions about it which do not have any real value. (We earlier discussed a similar case about the Evil-eye)

It may simply be a reference to some diseases caused by apparently unknown factors expressed this way especially taking into account the times in which the statement was made.

The word "Sihr" is so called as "it changes health and soundness to disease" (see E.W. Lane's Lexicon Book I p.1316) and in that sense it is simply a reference to the something causing ailment like the word used to imply toxin poison and is hinted to by the word "or" used in many narrations. This might be a reference to certain radiations that adversely affect human body. And we know certain of the ingredients of dates like Calcium, magnesium, Selenium, Zinc, Vitamin C etc. are helpful against radiations.

Summary of the above:

The two things mentioned above are for dates in general and as clear from the Hadith reports the ‘ajwa dates from al-Aliya locality of al-Medina are even more beneficial especially in that particular environment.

With regards to toxins there is no doubt the dates are indeed curative. As to magic more research is possible however whatever is written above suffices to kill the skeptical notions about the Hadith. Those who doubt the Hadith have nothing to substantiate their view. We at least have fair amount of support in favor of our thesis.
The Hadith narrations say, 'ajwa dates from al-Aliya taken regularly as first thing in the morning breaking the fast -in spells of 7 successive days- is a cure against toxins, just as they are helpful as a preventive cure against heart and stomach problems.

LET ME TURN THE TABLES!

While the explanation above is quite enough for any ardent and reasonable observer, for the hate mongers from amongst the Christian missionaries I have a challenge on these lines. And the challenge is to drink the “any deadly thing” and stay unhurt. This is what the Bible promises putting the words into the mouth of Jesus –may Allah bless him.

“They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” (KJV, Mark 16:18)

I always wonder how come missionary haters of Islam muster up the courage to talk about Islam. Don’t they ever turn back and have a look at their own house?

Acknowledgement: I am indebted to the invaluable help offered by brother Azhan Ahmad in bringing up this article.

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Prophet Muhammad's Night Journey To Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa - The Farthest Mosque

  Prophet Mu h ammad's Night Journey To Al-Masjid Al-Aq s a - The Farthest Mosque Islamic Awareness © Islamic Awareness, All Rights Rese...