Sunday, September 11, 2016

Was abu Jahal mutilated and brought to the Prophet? Fact checking The masked arab

(English isn't my first language so i might make grammatical mistakes)
this is a very short reply to the masked arab video regarding beheadings and mutilations, i shall look into the example he brought regarding mutilating the body of Abu Jahal, and was he really executed that way
the reason why i decided to address only this issue is because i was waiting for a complete throughout citation regarding the mutilation of dead bodies, although the masked arab admitted in his video that according to an authentic hadith mutilating the dead bodies is not allowed in islam but it's allowed incase if it was regarding revenge or retribution

there is a problem here, he rejected the out loud the most authentic source for islam namingly the second most authentic source which is the hadith stating that it's not allowed to mutilate the dead bodies, and based on a fatwa by a website named islamway, he concluded that you can still mutilate them so long as it's for revenge, now let's assume this is true, if it's really ok to mutilate the dead bodies in case of revenge, so what? the statement here is so vague and ambiguous the masked arab didn't even specify why he has an issue here, if someone mutilated your brother to pieces then you act in revenge by doing the same thing to him, where is the problem here? is it because of how grotesque it's or how violent it's? the masked arab didn't specify what is the issue here, however let me address the problem of mutilating abu jahal then i will proceed to cite my own counter fatwas that forbade mutilating the dead even in revenge

Was Abu Jahl Mutilated after he Died?:

the answer is unsurprisingly No, the source for the narration is actually weak, as i discussed this with skeptical77 in my last post, this is not surprising given the fact that the masked arab cited no sanad no authentication just like in his video regarding the execution of prisoners of war

in a dedicated article in Islam Web, the largest and most authentic online source for islam they have stated that the narration regarding the mutilation of abu jahl lack any significant sanad, 

"روى الطيالسي في مسنده، وأبو عوانة في مستخرجه، والطبراني في معجمه الكبير، والبيهقي في الكبرى عن ابن مسعود قال: أدركت أبا جهل يوم بدر صريعا، فقلت: أي عدو الله، قد أخزاك الله، قال: وبما أخزاني الله من رجل قتلتموه؟ ومعي سيف لي فجعلت أضربه ولا يحتك فيه شيء، ومعه سيف له جيد فضربت يده فوقع السيف من يده فأخذته، ثم كشفت المغفر عن رأسه فضربت عنقه"

Al-Tialisi narrated in his sanad from abu 'una and al-tirani in ma'jam al-kabir, and bayhaqi in tabakat al kubra from ibn mas'ud said: i came across abu jahl in the day of badir on the verge of death, i said: oh enemy of allah , allah has embarrassed , and he replied : and what did god embarrassed me with, a man you killed? and i had a sword so i stroke him and nothing moved from him, and he had a sword so i cut off his hand, so exposed the helmet of his head and beheaded him

according to muhammad al-swaini in his book al sira al nabawia "there are many witnesses in this hadith, many in al tabarani, there is however a disconnection between abi ubaida and his father[1]

this means that this hadith is regarded as mursal, which means it’s weak, and I have already explained with sources in this blog how weak mursal is

now let us explore other sources

قال ابن إسحاق: وزعم رجال من بني مخزوم أن ابن مسعود كان يقول: قال لي: لقد ارتقيت مرتقى صعبا يا رويعي الغنم، قال: ثم احتززت رأسه ثم جئت به رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقلت: يا رسول الله هذا رأس عدو الله.

Ibn Ishaq said: and a man from bani Makhzum said that ibn Mas’ud used to say to me: i made a hardship oh Grazers, then he said : I took his head (reffering to abu jahl) then I brought it to Muhammad I said : this is the head of allah’s enemy[2]

Right of the bat we have a problem without even citing a single source, we have an unknown narrator, who is that man from bani makhzum who made this narration to ibn mas’ud this is the same source used in regards tho how abu jahl had his ears cut off and dragged with a string to the prophet that the masked arab used at the end of his video
I have stated again that unknown narrators are not accepted in Islamic tradition

النسائي في السنن الكبرى، ثم قال: خالفه سفيان الثوري، فرواه عن أبي إسحاق، عن أبي عبيدة، عن عبد الله، وأبو عبيدة لم يسمع من أبيه، ورواية سفيان هي الصواب. اهـ.
ورواية سفيان أخرجها الطبراني في المعجم الكبير من طريق ابن مهدي، عنه، عن أبي إسحاق، عن أبي عبيدة، عن عبد الله، قال: أتيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم برأس أبي جهل، فقلت: هذا رأس أبي جهل! قال: الله الذي لا إله غيره؟ وهكذا كانت يمينه، فقلت: والله الذي لا إله غيره، إن هذا رأس أبي جهل، فقال: هذا فرعون هذه الأمة.

فصرح هنا بأخذ ابن مسعود رأس أبي جهل إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، ولكن إسناده ضعيف لانقطاعه بين أبي عبيدة بن عبد الله بن مسعود وأبيه.[3]

“Al-Nisasi stated in Sunan Alkubra: then he said : Al-Thawri disagreed with him, abi Ishaq narrated from abi ‘ubaida and abi ‘ubaida didn’t hear from his father , and the narration of sufian is the one
And suffian’s narration was brought by tabari in ma’jam al-kabir from ibn Mahdi from abi isaq from abi ‘ubaida from Abdullah said: I came to the proohet with the head of abu jahl, he said : is this the head of abu jahl ? he said : by god who there is no god but him? And this was his swearing so I said : allah who has no god but he, this is the head of abu jahl, then he said this  was the far’un of this ummah
It was stated here that ibn mas’ud took abu jahl head to the prophet, but the sanad is weak because of disconnection between abu ‘ubaida and Abdullah ibn mas’ud and his father”

Take this for example . abu dawood al sijistani said in his book al marasil:
“in these ahadiths (reffering to beheadings of ka’ab bin ashraf or aswad al-‘ansi and rafi’a bin qais, and ibn mas’ud cutting the head of abu jahl) about the prophet Muhammad has nothing authentic or correct about them”[4]

Now, in a counter reply to the so called fatwa the masked arab cited
Here is a counter fatwa stating the opposite, at first it tries to explain what mutilation is, then it proceed to extrapolate what is the opinion of scholars[5]

" لا خلاف في تحريمِ المُثْلةِ "[6]

“ there is no disagreement regarding the forbade of mutilating the dead”

Now let me digest the masked arab logic here, he state based on a fatwa that you can still mutilate the dead bodies of your enemies so long as they did the same to you, but he ignores the out right reject of mutilation of dead bodies simply because of a quanic verse that state, however I noticed something strange, in the Arabic version of his video regarding verse 16:126, he didn’t cite tafsir al jalalain Arabic verse, but cited tafsir al tabari, you would expect he give his audience the same source, however to be fair, the narration of Hamza assassination does exist there
However, his citation was not void of any issues, he misquoted the tafsir to fit his propaganda
Now he cites this narration regarding Hamza assassination

حدثنا ابن حميد، قال: ثنا سلمة، عن محمد بن إسحاق، عن بعض أصحابه، عن عطاء بن يسار، قال نزلت سورة النحل كلها بمكة، وهي مكية، إلا ثلاث آيات في آخرها نزلت في المدينة بعد أُحد، حيث قُتل حمزة ومُثِّل به، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: " لَئِنْ ظَهَرْنا عَلَيْهم لَنُمَثِّلَنَّ بِثَلاثِينَ رَجُلاً مِنْهُمْ " فلما سمع المسلمون بذلك، قالوا: والله لئن ظهرنا عليهم ظهرنا عليهم لنمثلنّ بهم مُثلة لم يمثِّلها أحد من العرب أحد قطُّ، فأنزل الله { وإنْ عاقَبْتُمْ فَعاقِبُوا بِمِثْلِ ما عُوقِبْتُمْ بِهِ، وَلَئَنْ صَبَرْتُمْ لَهُوَ خَيْرٌ للصَّابِرِينَ.... } إلى آخر السورة.

The problem here is Yet again, the Sanad for the story, the masked arab (as usual) cite sources without checking the sanad, the first one here is Ibn Humaid, I took the effort of highlighting the weak narrators
Ibn Humaid أبن حميد
Is regarded as weak and matruk[7]

So right of the bat, the very first narrator of this hadith is regarded as weak and matruk, why didn’t the masked arab check for the sanad? NVM let’s forget how weak this story is, the problem doesn’t end here, the masked arab misquoted as I said, tafsir al tabari
What did he misquote? At the start tabari state that this verse 16:126 had many scholars disagree regarding wither it’s abrogated or not
وقد اختلف أهل التأويل في السبب الذي من أجله نزلت هذه الآية. وقيل: هي منسوخة أو محكمة
And the people of interpretation disagreed regarding the reasons why this verse was revealed, some said it’s abrogated, and some said it’s not

Now, one might ask, how was abu jahl killed? Well we Do have an authentic narraton as to how abu jahl was excuted, and it’s in sahih Bukhari, so I’ll leave any of the masked arab fans who might happen to stumble accurse this article to please answer this question

Why did the masked arab choses a non-authentic narration as to how abu jahl was executed and ignored sahih bukhari authentic narration?

Anyways, here is the authentic source

Narrated `Abdur-Rahman bin `Auf:
While I was standing in the row on the day (of the battle) of Badr, I looked to my right and my left and saw two young Ansari boys, and I wished I had been stronger than they. One of them called my attention saying, "O Uncle! Do you know Abu Jahl?" I said, "Yes, What do you want from him, O my nephew?" He said, "I have been informed that he abuses Allah's Messenger (). By Him in Whose Hands my life is, if I should see him, then my body will not leave his body till either of us meet his fate." I was astonished at that talk. Then the other boy called my attention saying the same as the other had said. After a while I saw Abu Jahl walking amongst the people. I said (to the boys), "Look! This is the man you asked me about." So, both of them attacked him with their swords and struck him to death and returned to Allah'S Apostle to inform him of that. Allah's Messenger () asked, "Which of you has killed him?" Each of them said, "I Have killed him." Allah's Messenger () asked, "Have you cleaned your swords?" They said, "No. " He then looked at their swords and said, "No doubt, you both have killed him and the spoils of the deceased will be given to Mu`adh bin `Amr bin Al-Jamuh." The two boys were Mu`adh bin 'Afra and Mu`adh bin `Amr bin Al-Jamuh.[8]

In conclusion, Abu Jahl narration that state he had his head cut off and dragged with a string to the prophet, in light of Islamic tradition can’t stand to it’s merits and the masked arab yet again lied to his audience, including citing a weak hadith regarding Hamza assassination, using a late fatwa that can be easily disputed using counter fatwas as I cited a counter source, and more over failed to comprehend how weak Muhammad biography really is I will address future videos, duo to how small this article is

[2] Ibn Kathir Al-Bidaia Wa Alnihaia Vol 3
[4] Abu Dawood Al-sijistani Marasil page.328
[6] Tafsir Al-Zamakshari (2/503)

[8] Sahih al-Bukhari 3141


  1. ""in these ahadiths (reffering to beheadings of ka’ab bin ashraf or aswad al-‘ansi and rafi’a bin qais, and ibn mas’ud cutting the head of abu jahl) about the prophet Muhammad has nothing authentic or correct about them""

    The killing of Ka'b is mentioned in bukhari, how can that story be false??

    1. this was in regards to some narrations stating that ka'ab was mutilated got his head chopped while he is dead and brought to Muhammad like what supposedly happen to abu jahl

      not the actual assassination of ka'ab, if these stories are false why did i cited the authentic version of abu jahl assassination?

      that because this quote is talking about other narrations that are not related to sahih bukhari

    2. So,briefly, whatever shows Muhammad in a bad light is inauthentic ,whatever shows the otherwise is authentic. The Basic principle of hadith studies.

    3. Btw, your footnotes are all numbered with "1". You had better fix it

    4. done, fix it, blogger tend to mess up my word format

    5. No, i will quote myself in one of my article
      now what do scholar say in terms of the grade Sahih in chain
      there are 5 conditions to meet to authenticate a hadith:
      1- All narrators should be authenticated
      2- all the narrators should carefully observe what they narrate
      3- the connection of the sanad from the start to the end of the matin
      4- the matin and sanad should be clear of any odd insertion
      5- the hadith should be clear of any flaw from it's sanad to it's matin

      Abu 'Umro Ibn Al-Salah said:
      “as for the Sahih hadith, it's the Hadith that the Sanad authenticated and certified and connected to the Matin and should not be odd (abnormal) or contain any flaw”

      don't give me that excuse (oh anything that shows muhammad to be bad muslims reject it as unauthentic)

      And BTW, Muhammad is barely mentioned here in this article

  2. Unrelated&just out of curiosity: do you accept 'stonning to death' as an islamic punishment? Im assuming u dont,since ur a quranist?

    1. There are two answers here, as a quranist i don't accept it as an authentic form of punishment , duo to the fact it's not mentioned in quran

      But from traditional islam point of view, yes I do (if i was arguing from scholarly point of view only and if I was arguing about how islamic tradtion value it) because it's part of an abrogated verse that state , alshaikh wa a alshaykha itha zanaya fa irjimuhuma naklata
      Meaning, the man and the woman if they commit zina then stone them
      This verse might not exist in quran but according to traditional islam, it's a subjective of abrogated by spelling not by rolling, which means it's no longer there but the rolling is used, scholars might disagree regarding stoning but it's predominant there in traditional islam at least

      So the answer varies, if you are asking my own personal stance after years of studying the religion, then no as i came to the conclusion that sunni islam was not the nascent islam we though
      And if you are arguing about how I saw islam view it, then yes it's there in islamic scripture

    2. Im a little confused I though the only reasons muslims were practicing punishment of stoning was because of the laws of the previous books like the old testament. But once the verse of lashes came it replaced the previous punishment. Far as I understand there is nothing about stoning in the quran, it was only followed because it was the prescribed punishment for adulterers (only when its proven through 4 witnesses).

    3. There are many things advocated in the bible yet not followed by muslims, so no muslims practicing stunning is not because of the bible, it's because of a verse that was abrogated in spelling only

  3. What about the ahadith speaking of Ali and Abu bakr burning people alive?

    1. I'm familiar with both of them, some reports claim it's not authentic, it's not realy of my intrastate as i don't really care how brutal the punishment is, what i care about is the motivations behind it
      now speaking of it, abu baker only record pseudo authentic source of him burning someone is by the name of fujaa, now let us assume this narration is authentic, and that he did burn fujaa, what did fujaa do, according to the tradition, fujaa asked abu baker to arm him so he can fight apostates, fujaa came out and not only killed apostates but also innocent muslims, so he was punished

      source: Al-Balathi Futuh al buldan page.282
      now, i was able to gain access to the sanad of the story, apparently Saif bin umar al tamimi exist in the narration, and he is one of the most well known liars and fabricators

      although like i said further research required, the only source i could grab that has the sanad that i was able to hold is in ibn 'abid al bar in his iste'ab, as he was able to find the narrators, and among them is saif

      Ibn Taymia in minhaj (5/495) who is regarded as the Sheikh of Islam said
      قال الرافضي وأحرق الفجاءة السلمي بالنار وقد نهى النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم عن الإحراق بالنار
      Alrafidi (referring to shia) said that fujja was burned with fire, but the prophet prohibited burning with fire

      as i said, i don't care about how brutal the punishment is, i care about the motivations behind it, although the hadith of burning fujaa seams weak, even if we accept it's authenticity, according to the tradition, Fujja murdred muslims

    2. So if sb murders muslims then they deserve to be burnt to death.isis thinks the same.

      Anyway,the hadith about Ali is in bukhari.

    3. like i said, i never looked into it, because i don't care how brutal the punishment is, i care about the motivations behind it, this also apply to ali hadith in bukhari
      no, what I'm saying is that Even if we accept the authenticity of this hadith, he was burned for killing muslims aswell, also i stated earlier Muhammad already prohibited burning with fire
      We were with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) during a journey. He went to ease himself. We saw a bird with her two young ones and we captured her young ones. The bird came and began to spread its wings. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) came and said: Who grieved this for its young ones? Return its young ones to it. He also saw an ant village that we had burnt. He asked: Who has burnt this? We replied: We. He said: It is not proper to punish with fire except the Lord of fire.
      Sunan Abi Dawud 2675
      sanad: Sahih

      here are my points
      1- according to sanad, this hadith is very strange and probably weak
      2- even if we accept that it's authentic fujjaa murdered muslims and he was burned for that
      3- the prophet stated no one should punish with fire except the lord of fire
      4- the point here is not the punishment, i don't care about how brutal it's, i care about the motivations behind it