Surah Al-Hashr

Surah Al-Hashr (The Gathering),059

By Sayyid Abul ‘Ala Mawdudi (rahimahullāh)

In the name of Allāh, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful;

All the praise and Thanks  is  due to Allāh, the Lord of the al-'ālamīn. There is none worthy of worship except Allāh, and that Muhammad, Sallallāhu alayhi wa sallam, is His Messenger.

Name

The Surah derives its name from the mention of the word al-hashr (The Gathering) in verse thereby implying that it is the Surah in which the word al-hashr has occurred. 

Period of Revelation

Bukhari and Muslim contain a tradition from Sa'id bin Jubair  (radiyallāhu`anhu) to the effect "When I asked Abdullah bin Abbas(radiyallāhu`anhu)  about Surah Al-Hashr, he replied that it was sent down concerning the battle against the Bani an-Nadir just as Surah Al-Anfal was sent down concerning the Battle of Badr. In another tradition from Hadrat Sa'id bin Jubair, the words cited from Ibn Abbas (radiyallāhu`anhu) are: Qul: Surah an-Nadir: Say, it is Surah an-Nadir." The same thing has been related also from Mujahid, Qatadah, Zuhri, Ibn Zaid, Yazid bin Ruman, Muhammad bin Ishaq and others. They are unanimous that the followers of the Book, whose banishment has been mentioned in it, imply the Bani an-Nadir. Yazid bin Ruman, Mujahid and Muhammad bin Ishaq have stated that this whole Surah, from beginning to end, came down concerning this very battle. 

As for the question as to when this battle took place, Imam Zuhri has stated on the authority of Urwah bin Zubair that it took place six months after the Battle of Badr. However, Ibn Sa'ad, Ibn Hisham and Baladhuri regard it as an event of Rabi' al-Awwal, A. H. 4, and the same is correct. For all traditions agree that this battle took place after the incident of Bi'r Ma'unah, and historically also it is well known that the incident of Bir Ma'unah occurred after the Battle of Uhud and not before it. 

Historical Background

In order to understand the subject matter of this Surah well, it is necessary to have a look at the history of the Madinah and Hejaz Jews, for without it one cannot know precisely the real causes of the Holy Prophet's dealing with their different tribes the way he did. 

No authentic history of the Arabian Jews exists in the world. They have not left any writing of their own in the form of a book or a tablet which might throw light on their past, nor have the Jewish historians and writers of the non-Arab world made any mention of them, the reason being that after their settlement in the Arabian peninsula they had detached themselves from the main body of the nation, and the Jews of the world did not count them as among themselves. For they had given up Hebrew culture and language, even the names, and adopted Arabism instead. In the tablets that have been unearthed in the archaeological research in the Hejaz no trace of the Jews is found before the first century of the Christian era, except for a few Jewish names. Therefore, the history of the Arabian Jews is based mostly on the verbal traditions prevalent among the Arabs most of which bad been spread by the Jews themselves. 

The Jews of the Hejaz claimed that they had come to settle in Arabia during the last stage of the life of the Prophet Moses (‘alaihissalam). They said that the Prophet Moses (‘alaihissalam) had dispatched an army to expel the Amalekites from the land of Yathrib and had commanded it not to spare even a single soul of that tribe. The Israelite army carried out the Prophet's command, but spared the life of a handsome prince of the Amalekite king and returned with him to Palestine. By that time the Prophet Moses had passed sway. His successors took great exception to what the army had done, for by sparing the life of an Amalekite it had clearly disobeyed the Prophet and violated the Mosaic Law. Consequently, they excluded the army from their community, and it had to return to Yathrib and settle there forever.(Kitab al-Aghani, vol. xix, p. 94). Thus the Jews claimed that they had been living in Yathrib since about 1200 B.C. But, this had in fact no historical basis and probably the Jews had invented this story in order to overawe the Arabs into believing that they were of noble lineage and the original inhabitants of the land. 

The second Jewish immigration, according to the Jews, took, place in 587 BC. when Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, destroyed Jerusalem and dispersed the Jews throughout the world. The Arab Jews said that several of their tribes at that time had come to settle in Wadi al-Qura, Taima, and Yathrib.(Al-Baladhuri, Futuh al-Buldan). But this too has no historical basis. By this also they might have wanted to prove that they were the original settlers of the area. 

As a matter of fact, what is established is that when in A. D. 70 the Romans massacred the Jews in Palestine, and then in A. D. 132 expelled them from that land, many of the Jewish tribes fled to find an asylum in the Hejaz, a territory that was contiguous to Palestine in the south. There, they settled wherever they found water springs and greenery, and then by intrigue and through money lending business gradually occupied the fertile lands. Ailah, Maqna, Tabuk, Taima, Wadi al Qura, Fadak and Khaiber came under their control in that very period, and Bani Quraizah, Bani al-Nadir, Bani Bahdal, and Bani Qainuqa also came in the same period and occupied Yathrib. 

Among the tribes that settled in Yathrib the Bani al Nadir and the Bani Quraizah were more prominent for they belonged to the Cohen or priest class. They were looked upon as of noble descent and enjoyed religious leadership among their co- religionists. When they came to settle in Madinah there were some other tribes living there before, whom they subdued and became practically the owners of this green and fertile land. 

About three centuries later, in A. D. 450 or 451, the great flood of Yaman occurred which has been mentioned in vv. 16-17 of Surah Saba above. As a result of this different tribes of the people of Saba were compelled to leave Yaman and disperse in different parts of Arabia. Thus, the Bani Ghassan went to settle in Syria, Bani Lakhm in Hirah (Iraq), Bani Khuzaah between Jeddah and Makkah and the Aus and the Khazraj went to settle in Yathrib. As Yathrib was under Jewish domination, they at first did not allow the Aus and the Khazraj to gain a footing and the two Arab tribes had to settle on lands that had not yet been brought under cultivation, where they could hardly produce just enough to enable them to survive. At last, one of their chiefs went to Syria to ask for the assistance of their Ghassanide brothers; he brought an army from there and broke the power of the Jews. Thus, the Aus and the Khazraj were able to gain complete dominance over Yathrib, with the result that two of the major Jewish tribes, Bani an-Nadir and Bani Quraizah were forced to take quarters outside the city. Since the third tribe, Bani Qainuqa was not on friendly terms with the other two tribes, it stayed inside the city as usual, but had to seek protection of the Khazraj tribe. As a counter measure to this Bani an- -Nadir and Bani Quraizah took protection of the Aus tribe so that they could live in peace in the suburbs of Yathrib. 

Before the Holy Prophet's arrival at Madinah until his emigration the following were the main features of the Jews position in Hejaz in general and in Yathrib in particular:

1. In the matter of language, dress, civilization and way of life they had completely adopted Arabism, even their names had become Arabian. Of the 12 Jewish tribes that had settled in Hejaz, none except the Bani Zaura retained its Hebrew name. Except for a few scattered scholars none knew Hebrew. In fact, there is nothing in the poetry of the Jewish poets of the pre-Islamic days to distinguish it from the poetry of the Arab poets in language, ideas and themes. They even inter-married with the Arabs. In fact, nothing distinguished them from the common Arabs except religion. Notwithstanding this, they had not lost their identity among the Arabs and had kept their Jewish prejudice alive most ardently and jealously. They had adopted superficial Arabism because they could not survive in Arabia without it.
2. Because of this Arabism the western orientalists have been misled into thinking that perhaps they were not really Israelites but Arabs who had embraced Judaism, or that at least majority of them consisted of the Arab Jews. But there is no historical proof to show that the Jews ever engaged in any proselytizing activities in Hejaz, or their rabbis invited the Arabs to embrace Judaism like the Christian priests and missionaries. On the contrary, we see that they prided themselves upon their Israelite descent and racial prejudices. They called the Arabs the Gentiles, which did not mean illiterate or uneducated but savage and uncivilized people. They believed that the Gentiles did not possess any human rights; these were only reserved for the Israelites, and therefore, it was lawful and right for the Israelites to defraud them of their properties by every fair and foul means. Apart from the Arab chiefs, they did not consider the common Arabs fit enough to have equal status with them even if they entered Judaism. No historical proof is available, nor is there any evidence in the Arabian traditions, that some Arab tribe or prominent clan might have accepted Judaism. However, mention has been made of some individuals, who had become Jews. The Jews, however, were more interested in their trade and business than in the preaching of their religion. That is why Judaism did not spread as a religion and creed in Hejaz but remained only as a mark of pride and distinction of a few Israelite tribes. The Jewish rabbis, however, had a flourishing business in granting amulets and charms, fortune telling and sorcery, because of which they were held in great awe by the Arabs for their "knowledge" and practical wisdom.
3. Economically they were much stronger than the Arabs. Since they bad emigrated from more civilized and culturally advanced countries of Palestine and Syria, they knew many such arts as were unknown to the Arabs; they also enjoyed trade relations with the outside world. Hence, they had captured the business of importing grain in Yathrib and the upper Hejaz and exporting dried dates to other countries. Poultry farming and fishing also were mostly under their controls They were good at cloth weaving too. They had also set up wine shops here and there, where they sold wine which they imported from Syria. The Bani Qainuqa generally practised crafts such as that of the goldsmith, blacksmith and vessel maker. In all these occupations, trade and business these Jews earned exorbitant profits, but their chief occupation was trading in money lending in which they had ensnared the Arabs of the surrounding areas. More particularly the chiefs and elders of the Arab tribes who were given to a life of pomp, bragging and boasting on the strength of borrowed money were deeply indebted to them. They lent money on high rates of interest and then would charge compound interest, which one could hardly clear off once one was involved in it. Thus, they had rendered the Arabs economically hollow, but it had naturally induced a deep rooted hatred among the common Arabs against the Jews.
4. The demand of their trade and economic interests was that they should neither estrange one Arab tribe by befriending another, nor take part in their mutual wars. But, on the other hand, it was also in their interests, that they should not allow the Arabs to be united and should keep them fighting and entrenched against each other, for they knew that whenever the Arab tribes united, they would not allow them to remain in possession of their 1large properties, gardens and fertile lands, which they had come to own through their profiteering and money lending business. Furthermore, each of their tribes also had to enter into alliance with one or another powerful Arab tribe for the sake of its own protection so that no other powerful tribe should overawe it by its might. Because of this they had not only to take part in the mutual wars of the Arabs but they often had to go to war in support of the Arab tribe to which their tribe was tied in alliance against another Jewish tribe which was allied to the enemy tribe. In Yathrib the Bani Quraizah and the Bani an-Nadir were the allies of the Aus while the Bani Qainuqa of the Khazraj. A little before the Holy Prophet's emigration, these Jewish tribes had confronted each other in support of their respective allies in the bloody war that took place between the Aus and the Khazraj at Buath.

Such were the conditions when Islam came to Madinah, and ultimately an Islamic State came into existence after the Holy Prophet's (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) arrival there. One of the first things that he accomplished soon after establishing this state was unification of the Aus and the Khazraj and the Emigrants into a brotherhood, and the second was that he concluded a treaty between the Muslims and the Jews on definite conditions, in which it was pledged that neither party would encroach on the rights of the other, and both would unite in a joint defense against the external enemies. Some important clauses of this treaty are as follows, which clearly show what the Jews and the Muslims had pledged to adhere to in their mutual relationship: 

"The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. They shall sincerely wish one another well. Their relations will be governed by piety and recognition of the rights of others, and not by sin and wrongdoing. The wronged must be helped. The Jews must pay with the believers so long as the war lasts. Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document. If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise, it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the Apostle of God; Quraish and their helpers shall not be given protection. The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib; Every one shall be responsible for the defence of the portion to which he belongs" (lbn Hisham, vol. ii, pp. 147 to 150). 

This was on absolute and definitive covenant to the conditions of which the Jews themselves had agreed. But not very long after this they began to show hostility towards the Holy Prophet of Allāh (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam)and Islam and the Muslims, and their hostility and perverseness went on increasing day by day. Its main causes were three: 

First, they envisaged the Holy Prophet (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam)merely as a chief of his people, who should be content to have concluded a political agreement with them and should only concern himself with the worldly , interests of his group. But they found that he was extending an invitation to belief in Allāh and the Apostleship and the Book (which also included belief in their own Prophets and scriptures), and was urging the people to give up disobedience of Allāh and adopt obedience to the Divine Commands and abide by the moral laws of their own prophets. This they could not put up with. They feared that if this universal ideological movement gained momentum it would destroy their rigid religiosity and wipe out their racial nationhood. 

Second, when they saw that the Aus and the Khazraj and the Emigrants were uniting into a brotherhood and the people from the Arab tribes of the surrounding areas, who entered Islam, were also joining this Islamic Brotherhood of Madinah and forming a religious community, they feared that the selfish policy that they had been following of sowing discord between the Arab tribes for the promotion of their own well being and interests for centuries, would not work in the new system, but they would face a united front of the Arabs against which their intrigues and machinations would not succeed. 

Third, the work that the Holy Messenger of Allāh (Sallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) was carrying out of reforming the society and civilization included putting an end to all unlawful methods" in business and mutual dealings. More than that; he had declared taking and giving of interest also as impure and unlawful earning. This caused them the fear that if his rule became established in Arabia, he would declare interest legally forbidden, and in this they saw their own economic disaster and death. 

For these reasons they made resistance and opposition to the Holy Prophet (Sallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam) their national ideal. They would never hesitate to employ any trick and machination, any device and cunning, to harm him. They spread every kind of falsehood so as to cause distrust against him in the people's minds. They created every kind of doubt, suspicion and misgiving in the hearts of the new converts so as to turn them back from Islam. They would make false profession of Islam and then would turn apostate so that it may engender more and more misunderstandings among the people against Islam and the Holy Prophet (Sallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam). They would conspire with the hypocrites to create mischief and would cooperate with every group and tribe hostile to Islam. They would create rifts between the Muslims and would do whatever they could to stir them up to mutual feuds and fighting. The people of the Aus and the Khazraj tribes were their special target, with whom they had been allied for centuries. Making mention of the war of Buath before them they would remind them of their previous enmities so that they might again resort to the sword against each other and shatter their bond of fraternity into which Islam had bound them. They would resort to every kind of deceit and fraud in order to harm the Muslims economically. Whenever one of those with whom that had business dealings, would accept Islam, they would do whatever they could to cause him financial loss. If he owed them something they would worry and harass him by making repeated demands, and if they owed him something, they would withhold the payment and would publicly say that at the time the bargain was made he professed a different religion, and since he had changed his religion, they were no longer under any obligation towards him. Several instances of this nature have been cited in the explanation of verse 75 of Surah Al Imran given in the commentaries by Tabari, Nisaburi, Tabrisi and in Ruh al Ma'ani. 

They had adopted this hostile attitude against the covenant even before the Battle of Badr. But when the Holy Prophet (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and the Muslims won a decisive victory over the Quraish at Badr, they were filled with grief and anguish, malice and anger. They were in fact anticipating that in that war the powerful Quraish would deal a death blow to the Muslims. That is why even before the news of the Islamic victory reached Madinah they had begun to spread the rumor that the Holy Prophet (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam)had fallen a martyr and the Muslims had been routed, and the Quraish army under Abu Jahl was advancing on Madinah. But when the battle was decided against their hopes and wishes, they burst with anger and grief. Ka'b bin Ashraf, the chief of the Bani an-Nadir, cried out:"By God, if Muhammad has actually killed these nobles of Arabia, the earth's belly would be better for us than its back." Then he went to Makkah and incited the people to vengeance by writing and reciting provocative elegies for the Quraish chiefs killed at Badr. Then he returned to Madinah and composed lyrical verses of an insulting nature about the Muslim women. At last, enraged with his mischief, the Holy Prophet (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) sent Muhammad bin Maslamah Ansari in Rabi al-Awwal, A. H. 3, and had him slain. (Ibn Sad, Ibn Hisham, Tabari). 

The first Jewish tribe which, after the Battle of Badr, openly and collectively broke their covenant were the Bani Qainuqa. They lived in a locality inside the city of Madinah. As they practised the crafts of the goldsmith, blacksmith and vessel maker, the people of Madinah had to visit their shops fairly frequently. They were proud of their bravery and valor. Being blacksmiths by profession even their children were well armed, and they could instantly muster 700 fighting men from among themselves. They were also arrogantly aware that they enjoyed relations of confederacy with the Khazraj and Abdullah bin Ubbay, the chief of the, Khazraj, was their chief supporter. At the victory of Badr, they became so provoked that they began to trouble and harass the Muslims and their women in particular, who visited their shops. By and by things came to such a pass that one day a Muslim woman was stripped naked publicly in their bazaar. This led to a brawl in which a Muslim and a Jew were killed. Thereupon the Holy Prophet (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) himself visited their locality, got them together and counseled them on decent conduct. But the reply that they gave was; "O Muhammad, you perhaps think we are like the Quraish; they did not know fighting; therefore, you overpowered them. But when you come in contact with us, you will see how men fight." This was in clear words a declaration of war. Consequently, the Holy Prophet (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) laid siege to their quarters towards the end of Shawwal (and according to some others, of Dzul Qa'dah) A. H. 2. The siege had hardly lasted for a fortnight when they surrendered and all their fighting men were tied and taken prisoners. Now Abdullah bin Ubayy came up in support of them and insisted that they should be pardoned. The Holy Prophet (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) conceded his request and decided that the Bani Qainuqa would be exiled from Madinah leaving their properties, armour and tools of trade behind. (Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Hisham, Tarikh Tabari).

For some time after these punitive measures (i. e. the banishment of the Qainuqa and killing of Ka'ab bin Ashraf the Jews remained so terror stricken that they did not dare commit any further mischief. But later when in Shawwal, A. H. 3, the Quraish in order to avenge themselves for the defeat at Badr, marched against Madinah with great preparations, and the Jews saw that only a thousand men had marched out with the Holy Prophet (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam)as against three thousand men of the Quraish, and even they were deserted by 300 hypocrites who returned to Madinah, they committed the first and open breach of the treaty by refusing to join the Holy Prophet (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam)in the defense of the city although they were bound to it. Then, when in the Battle of Uhud the Muslims suffered reverses, they were further emboldened. So much so that the Bani an-Nadir made a secret plan to kill the Holy Prophet (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam)though the plan failed before it could be executed. According to the details, after the incident of Bi'r Maunah (Safar, A. H. 4) Amr bin Umayyah Damri slew by mistake two men of the Bani Amir in retaliation, who actually belonged to a tribe which was allied to the Muslims, but Amr had mistaken them for the men of the enemy. Because of this mistake their blood money became obligatory on the Muslims. Since the Bani an-Nadir were also a party in the alliance with the Bani Amir, the Holy Prophet (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam)went to their clan along with some of his Companions to ask for their help in paying the blood money. Outwardly they agreed to contribute, as he wished, but secretly they plotted that a person should go up to the top of the house by whose wall the Holy Prophet (Sallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam)was sitting and drop a rock on him to kill him. But before they could execute their plan, Allāh informed him in time and be immediately got up and returned to Madinah. 

Now there was no question of showing them any further concession. The Holy Prophet (Sallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam)at once sent to them the ultimatum that the treachery they had meditated against him had come to his knowledge; therefore, they were to leave Madinah within ten days; if anyone of them was found staying behind in their quarters, he would be put to the sword. Meanwhile Abdullah bin Ubayy sent them the message that he would help them with two thousand men and that the Bani Quraizah and Bani Ghatafan also would come to their aid; therefore, they should stand firm and should not go. On this false assurance they responded to the Holy Prophet's ultimatum saying that they would not leave Madinah and he could do whatever was in his power. Consequently, in Rabi' al-Awwal, A. H. 4, the Holy Prophet (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) laid siege to them, and after a few days of the siege (which according to some traditions were 6 and according to others 15 days) they agreed to leave Madinah on the condition that they could retain all their property which they could carry on thee camels, except the armor. Thus, Madinah was rid of this second mischievous tribe of Jews. Only two of the Bani an-Nadir became Muslims and stayed behind. Others went to Syria and Khaiber. 

This is the event that has been discussed in this Surah. 

Theme and Subject Matter

The theme of the Surah as stated above is an appraisal of the battle against the Bani an Nadir. In this, on the whole, four things have been discussed.

1. In the first four verses the world has been, admonished to take heed of the fate that had just befallen the Bani an-Nadir. A major tribe which was as strong in numbers as the Muslims, whose people boasted of far more wealth and possession who were by no means ill equipped militarily and whose forts were well fortified could not stand siege even for a few Days, and expressed their readiness to accept banishment from their centuries old, well established settlement even though not a single man from among them was slain. Allāh says that this happened not because of any power possessed by the Muslims but because the Jews had tried to resist and fight Allāh and His Messenger, and those who dare to resist the power of Allāh, always meet with the same fate.
2. In verse 5, the rule of the law of war that has been enunciated is: the destruction caused in the enemy territory for military purposes does not come under "spreading mischief in the earth."
3. In vv 6-10 it has been stated how the lands and properties which come under the control of the Islamic State as a result of war or peace terms, are to be managed. As it was the first ever occasion that the Muslims took control of a conquered territory, the law concerning it was laid down for their guidance.
4. In vv. 11-17 the attitude that the hypocrites had adopted on the occasion of the battle against the Bani an-Nadir has been reviewed and the causes underlying it have been pointed out.
5. The whole of the last section (vv. 18-24) is an admonition for all those people who had professed to have affirmed the faith and joined the Muslim community, but were devoid of the true spirit of the faith. In it they have been told what is the real demand of the Faith, what is the real difference between piety and wickedness, what is the place and importance of the Quran which they professed to believe in, and what are the attributes of Allāh in Whom they claimed to have believed.

Wallāhu’alam

[Excerpted from “The Meaning of the Qur’an“ by Sayyid Abul `Ala Maududi via USC]

Surah Mu‘awwidhatayn (Al-Falaq and An-Nas)

Surah Mu‘awwidhatayn  

(Al-Falaq and An-Nas)

By Sayyid Abul ‘Ala Mawdudi(rahimahullāh)

In the name of Allāh, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

Say, “I seek refuge in the Lord of daybreak: From the evil of that which He created; And from the evil of darkness when it settles; And from the evil of the blowers in knots; And from the evil of an envier when he envies.” [Al-Falaq (The Daybreak), 113:1-5]

In the name of Allāh, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

Say, “I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind; The Sovereign of mankind; The God of mankind: From the evil of the retreating whisperer -Who whispers [evil] into the breasts of mankind -From among the jinn and mankind.” [An-Nās (The Mankind), 114:6]

All the praise and Thanks are due to Allāh, the Lord of al-ā’lamīn. There is none worthy of worship except Allāh, and that Muhammad, Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam is His Messenger

The Name

Although these two Surahs of the Qur’an are separate entities and are written in the Mushaf also under separate names, yet they are so deeply related mutually and their contents so closely resemble each other`s that they have been designated by a common name Mu‘awwidhatayn (the two Surahs in which refuge with Allāh has been sought). Imam al-Baihaqi (rahimahullāh) in Dala ‘il an-Nubuwwat has written that these Surahs were revealed together, that is why the combined name of both is Mu‘awwidhatayn. 

We are writing the same one Introduction to both, for they discuss and deal with just the same matters and topics. However, they will be explained and commented on separately below. 

The Period of Revelation

Hasan Basri, ‘Ikrimah, ‘Ata’ and Jabir bin Zaid say that these Surahs are Makki. A tradition from ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas also supports the same view. However, according to another tradition from him, it is Madani and the same view is held also by `Abdullah bin Zubair and Qatadah. One of the traditions which strengthens this second view is the Hadith which Muslim, Tirmidzi, Nasā’ie and Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal have related on the authority of ‘Uqbah      bin `Amir. He says that Rasūlullāh (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) one day said to him: “Do you know what kind of verses has been revealed to me tonight? - these matchless verses are A‘udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq and A‘udhu bi-Rabbin-nas. This Hadith is used as an argument for these Surahs to be Madani because ’Uqbah bin ‘Amir had become a Muslim in Madinah after the hijrah, as related by Abu Dawud and Nasā’ie on the basis of his own statement. Other traditions which have lent strength to this view are those related by Ibn Sa‘ad, Muhiyy-us-Sunnah Baghawi, Imam Nasafi, Imam Baihaqi, Hafiz Ibn Hajar, Hafiz Badr-uddin ‘Ayni, ‘Abd bin Humaid and others to the effect that these Surahs were revealed when the Jews had worked magic on the Rasūlullāh (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) in Madinah and he had fallen ill under its effect. Ibn Sa’ad has related on the authority of Waqidi that this happened in A.H. 7. On this very basis Sufyan bin Uyainah also has described these two Surah as Madani. 

But as we have explained in the Introduction to Surah Al-‘Ikhlas, when it is said about a certain Surah or verse that it was revealed on this or that particular occasion, it does not necessarily mean that it was revealed for the first time on that very occasion. Rather it sometimes so happened that a Surah or a verse had previously been revealed, then on the occurrence or appearance of a particular incident or situation, the Rasūlullāh’s (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) attention was drawn to it by Allāh for the second time, or even again and again. In our opinion the same also was the case with the Mu‘awwidhatayn. The subject matter of these Surahs is explicit that these were sent down at Makkah in the first instance when opposition to the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) there had grown very intense. Later, when at Madinah storms of opposition were raised by the hypocrites, Jews and polytheists, the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was instructed to recite these very Surahs, as has been mentioned in the above cited tradition from ‘Uqbah   bin ‘Amir. After this, when magic was worked on him, and his illness grew intense, Gabriel came and instructed him by Allah’s command to recite these very Surahs. Therefore, in our opinion, the view held by the commentators who describe both these Surahs as Makki is more reliable. Regarding them as connected exclusively with the incident of magic is difficult, for to this incident related only one verse (v.4), the remaining verses of Surah al-Falaq and the whole of Surah An-Nas have nothing to do with it directly. 

The Theme and Subject-Matter

The conditions under which these two Surahs were sent down in Makkah were as follows. As soon as the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) began to preach the message of Islam, it seemed as though he had provoked all classes of the people around him. As his message spread the opposition of the disbelieving Quraish also became more and more intense. As long as they had any hope that they would be able to prevent him from preaching his message by throwing some temptation in his way, or striking some bargain with him, their hostility did not become very active. But when the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) disappointed them completely that he would not affect any kind of compromise with them in the matter of faith, and in Surah Al-Kafirun they were plainly told: “I do not worship those who you worship nor are you worshipers of Him Whom I worship. For you is your religion and for me is mine”, the hostility touched its extreme limits. More particularly, the families whose members (men or women, boys or girls) had accepted Islam were burning with rage from within against the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). They were cursing him, holding secret consultations to kill him quietly in the dark of the night so that the Bani Hashim could not discover the murderer and take revenge; magic and charms were being worked on him so as to cause his death, or make him fall ill, or become mad; satans from among the men and the jinn spread on every side so as to whisper one or another evil into the hearts of the people against him and the Qur’an brought by him so that they became suspicious of him and fled him. There were many people who were burning with jealousy against him, for they could not tolerate that a man from another family or clan than their own should flourish and become prominent. For instance, the reason why Abu Jahl was crossing every limit in his hostility to him has been explained by himself: “We and the Bani Abdi Manaf (to which the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) belonged) were rivals of each other: they fed others, we too fed others; they provided conveyances to the people, we too did the same; they gave donations, we too gave donations, so much so that when they and we have become equal in honor and nobility, they now proclaim that they have a Prophet (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) who is inspired from the heaven; how can we compete with them in this field? By God, we will never acknowledge him, nor affirm faith in him”. (Ibn Hisham, vol. I, pp. 337-338). 

Such were the conditions when the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was commanded to tell the people: “I seek refuge with the Lord of the dawn, from the evil of everything that He has created, and from the evil of the darkness of night and from the evil of magicians, men and women, and from the evil of the envious”, and to tell them: “I seek refuge with the Lord of mankind, the King of mankind, and the Deity of mankind, from the evil of the whisperer, who returns over and over again, who whispers (evil) into the hearts of men, whether he be from among the jinn or men.” This is similar to what the Prophet Moses had been told to say when Pharaoh had expressed his design before his full court to kill him: “I have taken refuge with my Lord and your Lord against every arrogant person who does not believe in the Day of Reckoning.” (Al-Mu`min,40: 27). And: “I have taken refuge with my Lord and your Lord lest you should assail me.” (Ad- Dukhan, 44: 20). 

On both occasions these illustrious Prophets of Allāh (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) were confronted with well-equipped, resourceful and powerful enemies. On both occasions they stood firm on their message of Truth against their strong opponents, whereas they had no material power on the strength of which they could fight them, and on both occasions they utterly disregarded the threats and dangerous plans and hostile devices of the enemy, saying: “We have taken refuge with the Lord of the universe against you.” Obviously, such firmness and steadfastness can be shown only by the person who has the conviction that the power of His Lord is the supreme power, which all powers of the world are insignificant against Him, and that no one can harm the one who has taken His refuge. Only such a one can say: “I will not give up preaching the Word of Truth. I care the least for what you may say or do, for I have taken refuge with my Lord and your Lord and Lord of all universe.” 

Question whether Mu‘awwidhatayn are, or are not, Quranic

The above discussion is enough to help one understand fully the theme and content of the two Surahs, but since three points in the books of Hadith and commentary concerning these Surahs have been discussed, which are likely to create doubts in the minds, it is necessary to clear them also here. 

First, whether it is absolutely established that these two Surahs are the Qur’anic Surahs, or whether there is some doubt in this regard. This question arose because in the traditions related from an illustrious Companion like Abdullah bin Mas’ud, it has been said that he did not regard these two Surahs as the Surahs of the Qur’an and had eliminated these from his copy of the Mushaf. Imam Ahmad, Bazzar, Tabarani, Ibn Marduyah, Abu Ya’la, Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal, Humaydi, Abu Nu`aim, Ibn Hibban and other traditionists have related this from Abdullah bin Mas’ud with different chains of transmitters and mostly on sound authority. According to these traditions, he not only eliminated these Surahs from the Mushaf but it has also been reported that he used to say: “Do not mix up with the Qur’an that which is not of the Qur’an. These two Surahs are not included in the Qur’an. This was only a command enjoined on the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) for seeking God’s refuge.” In some traditions there is also the addition that he did not recite these Surahs in the Solat. 

On the basis of these traditions the opponents of Islam had an opportunity to raise doubts about the Qur’an, saying that this Book, Allāh forbid, is not free from corruption. For when, according to a Companion of the rank of Abdullah bin Mas‘ud, these two Surahs are an annexation to the Qur’an, many other additions and subtractions also might have been made in it. 

To rid the Qur’an of this blame Qadi Abu Bakar Al-Baqillani, Qadi Iyad and others took the stand that Ibn Mas’ud was not in fact a denier of the Mu‘awwidhatayn being Qur’anic but only refused to write them in the Mushaf. For, according to him, only that which the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) had allowed should be written in the Mushaf, and Ibn Mas’ud did not receive the information that the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) had allowed this. But this stand is not correct, for according to sound evidence, it is confirmed that Ibn Mas’ud (radiyallāhu`anhu) had denied that these were Surahs of the Qur’an. 

Some other scholars, for instance, Imam Nawawi, Imam Ibn Hazm and Imam Fakhr-ud-din Razi, regard this as a pure lie and falsehood that Ibn Mas’ud had asserted any such thing. But to reject genuine historical facts without sound evidence is unscientific.

Now, the question is: How could the blame that attaches to the Qur’an because of these traditions of Ibn Mas’ud correctly refuted? This question has several answers which we shall give below in sequence: 

1.   Hafiz Bazzār after relating these traditions of Ibn Mas’ud in his Musnad has written that he is solitary and isolated in his this opinion; no one from among the Companions has supported this view.

2.  The copies of the Qur’an which the third Caliph, Uthman   (radiyallāhu‘anhu), had got compiled by the consensus of the Companions and which he had sent from the Islamic Caliphate officially to the parts of the world of Islam contained both these Surahs.

3.  The Mushaf which, since the sacred time of the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) till today, has the seal of consensus of the entire world of Islam contains both these Surahs. The solitary opinion of only Abdullah bin Mas‘ud, in spite of his high rank, has no weight against this great consensus.

4.  It is confirmed by sound and reliable ahadith from the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) that he not only recited these Surahs in the Solat himself but instructed others also to recite them, and taught them to the people as the Surahs of the Qur`an. Consider, for instance, the following ahadith: 

We have cited on the authority of Muslim, Ahmad, Tirmidzi and Nasā‘ie the tradition of ‘Uqbah bin Amir that the Allah Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) told him about Surah Al-Falaq and Surah An-Nas, saying that those verses had been revealed to him that night. A tradition in Nasā‘ie from ‘Uqbah bin ‘Amir is to the effect that Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu‘alayhi wa sallam) recited both these Surahs in the Solāt Fajar. 

Imam Ahmad on sound authority has related in his Musnad the tradition from a Companion that the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said to him, “When you perform the Solāt, recite both these Surahs in it.” 

In Musnad Ahmad, Abu Dawud and Nasā’ie this tradition of ‘Uqbah bin ‘Amir has been related: “The Allāh Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said to him: Should I not teach you two such Surahs as are among the best Surahs that the people recite? He said: Do teach me, O Messenger of Allāh. Thereupon the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) taught him the Mu‘awwidhatayn. Then the Solāt began and the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) recited the same two Surahs in it also and when after the Solat the Allah’s Messenger passed by him, he said to him, “O ‘Uqbah    how did you like it?” Then he instructed him to the effect: When you go to bed, and when you get up from bed, recite these Surahs.” 

In Musnad Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Tirmidzi and Nasā’ie there is a tradition from ‘Uqbah bin Amir, saying that the Allah’s Messenger exhorted him to recite the Mu`awwidhat (i.e. Qul Huwallāhu ahad and the Mu‘awwidhatayn) after every Solāt. 

Nasā`ie, Ibn Marduyah and Hākim have related this tradition also from ‘Uqbah bin ‘Amir: “Once the Allah’s Messenger was riding on a conveyance and I was walking along with him with my hand placed on his sacred foot. I said: Kindly teach me Surah Hud or Surah Yusuf. Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) replied: In the sight of Allāh there is nothing more beneficial for the servant than Qul a‘udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq.”

 

A tradition from ‘Abdullah bin Abid al-Juhani has been related by Nasā’ie, Baihaqi and Ibn Sad, saying that the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)  said to him: “Ibn Abid, should I not tell you what are the best things out of the means by which the seekers of refuge have sought refuge with Allāh? I submitted: Do teach me, O Messenger of Allāh. He replied: Qul a‘udhu bi-Rabbil- falaq and Qul a-udhu bi Rabbin-nas - both these Surahs.” Ibn Marduyah had related from Umm Salamah: “The Surahs best liked by Allāh are: Qul a‘udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq and Qul a‘udhu bi-Rabbin-nas.” 

Here, the question arises: what caused ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud the misunderstanding that these two are not Surahs of the Qur`an? We get the answer to it when we combine two traditions: first, that ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud asserted that this was only a command which the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was given to teach him the method of seeking refuge with Allāh; second, the tradition which Imam Bukhari has related in his Sahih, Imam Ahmad in his Musnad, Hafiz Abu Bakr al-Humaidi in his Musnad, Abu Nu‘aim in his Al-Mustakhraj and Nasā’ie   in his Sunan, with different chains of transmitters, on the authority of Zirr bin Hubaish, with a slight variation in wording from Ubayy bin Ka‘ab, who held a distinguished place among the Companions on the basis of his knowledge of the Qur`an. Zirr bin Hubaish states: “I said to Ubayy: Your brother ‘Abdullah bin Mas‘ud, says these things. What do you say about this view? He replied: I had asked the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) about this. He said to me: I was told to say ‘qul’, so I said ‘qul’. Therefore, we too say the same as the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said.” 

In the tradition related by Imam Ahmad, Ubayy’s words are to the effect: “I bear witness that the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) told me that Gabriel (‘Alayhis Salam) had told him to say: Qul a‘udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq; therefore, he recited likewise, and Gabriel asked him to say: Qul a‘udhu bi- Rabbin-nas; therefore he too said likewise. Hence, we too say as the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said.” 

A little consideration of these two traditions will show that the word qul (say) in the two Surahs caused Abdullah bin Mas’ud the misunderstanding that the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)  had been commanded to say: A‘udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq and A‘udhu bi-Rabbin-nas. But he did not feel any need to question the Allah` Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) about it. In the mind of Ubbay bin Ka’ab also a question arose about his and he put it before the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). The Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) replied: “Since Gabriel (‘alaihis salām) had said qul, so I too say qul.” Let us put it like this. If somebody is commanded and asked: “Say, I seek refuge”, he will not carry out the command, saying: “Say, I seek refuge”, but he will drop the work “say” and say: “I seek refuge.” On the contrary, if the messenger of a superior officer conveys to somebody the message in these words: “Say, I seek refuge”, and this command is given to him not only for his own person but to be conveyed to others, he will convey the words of the message verbatim to the people, and will not have the permission to drop anything from the text of the message. Thus, the fact that these two Surahs begin with the word qul is a clear proof that it is Divine Word, which the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was bound to convey verbatim. It was not merely a command given to him for his person. Besides these two Surahs, there are 330 other verses in the Qur’an which begin with the word qul (say). The presence of qul in all these is a proof that it is Divine Word. which was obligatory for the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) to convey verbatim; otherwise if qul everywhere had meant a command, the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) would have dropped it and said only that which he was commanded to say, and it would not have been recorded in the Qur`an, but, on the contrary, he would have remained content with saying only what he was commanded to say. 

Here, if one considers this, one can understand fully well how unreasonable it is to regard the Companions as infallible and to make the clamor that a Companion has been defamed as soon as one hears a saying or doing of his being described as wrong. Here, one can clearly see what a blunder happened to be committed by an illustrious Companion like ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud about two Surahs of the Qur’an. If such an error could be committed by an eminent Companion like him, others also might commit an error. We can examine it in the scientific way, and describe it as wrong if a thing said or done by a Companion is proved to be wrong. But wicked indeed would be the person who went beyond describing a wrong act as wrong and started reproving and finding fault with the Companions of the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam). Concerning the Mu‘awwidhatayn  the commentators and traditionists have described the opinion of Ibn Mas’ud as wrong, but no one has dared to say that by denying these two Surahs of the Qur’an, he had, Allah’s forbid, become a disbeliever. 

Question of Holy Prophet’s being affected by Magic

The second thing that has arisen in respect of these two Surahs is that, according to traditions, magic had been worked on the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), and he had fallen ill under its effect, and Gabriel (‘alayhis salam) had instructed him to repeat these Surahs to remove the charm. This has been objected to by many rationalists of both ancient and modern times. They say that if these traditions are accepted, the whole Sharī‘ah becomes doubtful. For if the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) could be charmed, and according to these traditions he was charmed, one cannot say what the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) might have been made to say and do under the influence of magic by his opponents, and what in his teaching may be Divine and what the result of magic. Not only this: they also allege that if this is accepted as true, it might well be that the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) might have been prompted to make the claim to Prophethood through magic and the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) by misunderstanding might have thought that an angel had come to him. They also argue that these traditions clash with the Qur’an. The Qur’an mentions the accusation of the disbelievers who said that the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was bewitched (Bani Isra’il:47), but these traditions confirm the accusation of the disbelievers that the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) had actually been charmed and bewitched. 

For a proper investigation of this question it is necessary that one should first see whether it is established by authentic historical evidence that the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) had actually been affected by magic, and if so, what it was and to what extent. Then it should be seen whether the objections raised against what is established historically do actually apply to it or not. 

The Muslim scholars of the earliest period were truly honest and upright in that they did not try to corrupt history or conceal facts according to their own ideas, concepts and assumptions. They conveyed intact to the later generations whatever was confirmed historically, and did not at all care how the material supplied by them could be used by the one who was bent upon drawing perverse conclusions from the facts. Now, if something stands confirmed by authentic and historical means, it is neither right for an honest and right-minded person that he should deny history on the ground that in case he accepted it, it would lead to these evil results according to his thinking, nor it is right that he should add to and stretch beyond its genuine limits by conjecture and speculation whatever is established historically. Instead, he should accept history as history and then see what is actually proved by it and what is not. 

As far as the historical aspect is concerned, the incident of the Allah Messenger’s (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was being affected by magic is absolutely confirmed, and if it can be refuted by scientific criticism, then no historical event of the world can be proved right and genuine. It has been related by Bukhari, Muslim, Nasā’ie, Ibn Majah, Imam Ahmad, Abdur Razzaq, Humaidi, Baihaqi, Tabarani, Ibn Sad, Ibn Mardayah, Ibn Abi Shaibah, Hakim, Abd bin Humaid and other traditionists on the authority of  ‘Aishah , Zaid bin Arqam and  Abdullah bin Abbas, through so many different and numerous channels that forgery is out of the question. Although each tradition by itself is an isolated report (khabar wahid), we give it below as a connected event from the details provided by the traditions. 

After the peace treaty of Hudaibiyah when the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) returned to Madinah, a deputation of the Jews of Khaibar visited Madinah in Muharram, A.H. 7 and met a famous magician, Labid bin Asam, who belonged to the Ansar tribe of Bani Zurayq. They said to him: “You know how Muhammad (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa allam) has treated us. We have tried our best to bewitch him but have not succeeded. Now we have come to you because you are a more skilled magician. Here are three gold coins, accept these and cast a powerful magic spell on Muhammad.” In those days the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) had a Jewish boy as his attendant. Through him they obtained a piece of the Rasūlullāh’s comb with some hair stuck to it. Magic was worked on the same hair and the teeth of the comb. According to some traditions, magic was worked by Labid bin Asam himself, according to others, his sisters were more skilled than him and he got the spell cast through them. Whatever be the case, Labid placed this spell in the spathe of a male date-tree and his it under a stone at the bottom of Dharwan or Dhi Arwan, the well of Bani Zurayq.

The spell took one whole year to have effect upon the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). In the latter half of the year the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) started feeling as if was unwell. The last forty days became hard on him, of which the last three days were even harder. But its maximum effect on him was that he way melting away from within. He thought he had done a thing whereas, in fact, he had not done it: he thought he had visited his wives whereas he had not visited them; and sometimes he would doubt having seen something whereas, in fact, he had not seen it. All these effects were confined to his own person; so much so that the other people could not notice what state he was passing through. As for his being a Prophet, no change occurred in the performance of his duties. There is no tradition to say that he might have forgotten some verses of the Qur’an in those days, or might have recited a verse wrongly, or a change might have occurred in the assemblies and in his counsels and sermons, or he might have presented a discourse as Revelation which may not have been revealed to him, or he might have missed a Prayer and thought that he had performed it. God forbid, if any such thing had happened, it would have caused a clamor and the whole of Arabia would have known that a magician had overpowered the one whom no power had been able to overpower. But the Holy Prophet’s position as a Prophet remained wholly unaffected by it. Only in his personal life he remained worried on account of it. 

At last, one day when Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was in the house of ‘Aishah, Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) prayed to Allāh to be restored to full health. In the meantime he fell asleep or drowsed and on waking he said to ‘Aishah: “My Lord has told me what I had asked of Him.”  ‘Aishah   (radiyallahu’anha) asked what it was. Rasūlullāh (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) replied:

 “Two men (i.e. two angels in human guise) came to me. One sat near my head and the other near my feet. The first asked: what has happened to him? The other replied: Magic has been worked on him. The first asked: who has worked it? He replied: Labid bin Asam. He asked: In what is it contained? He replied: In the comb and hair covered in the spathe of a male date-tree. He asked: where is it? He replied: under a stone at the bottom of Dhi Arwan (or Dharwan), the well of Bani Zurayq. He asked: what should be done about it? He replied: the well should be emptied and it should be taken out from under the stone.” The Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) then sent Ali, Ammar bin Yasir and Zubair: They were also joined by Jubair bin Iyas az-Zurqi (two men from Bani Zurayq). 

Later the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) also arrived at the well along with some Companions. The water was taken out and the spathe recovered. There they found that beside the comb and hair there were a cord with eleven knots on it and a wax image with needles pricked into it. Gabriel (`alayhis Salam) came and told him (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) to repeat the Mu‘awwidhatayn. As Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) repeated verse after verse, a know was loosened and a needle taken out every time, till on finishing the last words all the knots were loosened and all the needles removed, and he was entirely freed from the charm. 

After this Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) called Labid and questioned him. He confessed his guilt and the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) let him go, for he never avenged himself on anyone for any harm done to his person. Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) even declined to talk about it to others, saying that Allāh had restored him to health; therefore he did not like that he should incite the people against anyone. 

This is the story of the magic worked on the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). There if nothing in it which might run counter to his office of Prophethood. In his personal capacity if any injury could be inflicted on him as it happened in the Battle of Uhud, if he could fall from his horse and be hurt as is confirmed by the Hadith, if he could be stung by a scorpion as has been mentioned in some Traditions and none of these negates the protection promised him by Allāh in his capacity as a Prophet, he could also fall ill under the influence of magic in his personal capacity. That a Prophet can be affected by magic is also confirmed by the Qur’an. In Surah Al- A`raf it has been said about the magicians of Pharaoh that when they confronted the Prophet Moses, they bewitched the eyes of thousands of people who had assembled to witness the encounter (v. 116). In Surah Ta Ha it has been said that not only the common people but the Prophet Moses too felt that the cords and staffs that they cast were running towards them like so many snakes, and this filled Moses’ heart with fear. Thereupon Allāh revealed to him: “Don’t fear for you will come out victorious. Cast down you staff.” (Ayat. 66-69). As for the objection that this then confirms the accusation of the disbelievers of Makkah that the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)was a bewitched man, its answer is that the disbelievers did not call him a bewitched man in the sense that he had fallen ill under that effect of magic cast by somebody, but in the sense that some magician has, God forbid, made him mad, and he had made claim to Prophethood and was telling the people tales of Hell and Heaven in his same madness. Now, obviously this objection does not at all apply to a matter about which history confirms that the magic spell had affected only the person of Muhammad (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and not the Prophethood of Muhammad (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), which remained wholly unaffected by it. 

In this connection, another thing worthy of mention is that the people who regard magic as a kind of superstition hold this view only because the effect of magic cannot be explained scientifically. But there are many things in the world which one experiences and observes but one cannot explain scientifically how they happen. If we cannot give any such explanation it does not become necessary that we should deny the thing itself which we cannot explain. Magic, in fact, is a psychological phenomenon which can affect the body through the mind just as physical things affect the mind through the body. Fear, for instance, is a psychological phenomenon, but it affects the body: the hair stand on end and the body shudders. Magic does not; in fact, change the reality, but under its influence man’s mind and senses start feeling as if reality had changed. The staffs and the cords that the magicians had thrown towards the Prophet Moses, had not actually become snakes, but the eyes of the multitude of people were so bewitched that everybody felt they were snakes; even the senses of the Prophet Moses could not remain unaffected by the magic spell. Likewise, in Al-Baqarah: 102, it has been said that in Babylon people learnt such magic from Harut and Marut as could cause division between husband and wife. This too was a psychological phenomenon. Obviously, if the people did not find it efficacious by experience they could not become its customers. No doubt, it is correct that just like the bullet of the rifle and the bomb from the aircraft, magic too cannot have effect without Allah’s permission, but it would be mere stubbornness to deny a thing which has been experienced and observed by man for thousands for years. 

Question of Reciting Charms and Amulets in Islam

The third thing that arises in connection with these Surahs is whether recitation of charms and amulets has any place in Islam, and whether such recitation is by itself efficacious or not. This question arises for in many ahadith it has been reported that the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) at the time of going to bed every night, especially during illness, used to recite the Mu‘awwidhatayn (or according to other reports, the Mu‘awwidhat, i.e. Qul Huwallāhu Ahad and the Mu‘awwidhatayn) thrice, blow in his hands and then rub the hands on his body from head to foot as far as his hands could reach. During his last illness when it was not longer possible for him to so do, ‘Aishah recited these Surahs herself or by his command blew on his hands in view of their being blessed and rubbed them on his body. Traditions on this subject have been related in Bukhari, Muslim, Nasā’ie, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud and Muwatta of Imam Malik through authentic channels on the authority of ‘Aishah herself beside whom no one could be better acquainted with the domestic life of the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). 

In this regard, one should first understand its religious aspect. In the Hadith a lengthy tradition has been related on the authority of Abdullah bin ‘Abbas, at the end of which the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is reported to have said: “The people of my Ummah to enter Paradise without reckoning will be those who neither turn to treatment by branding, nor to enchanting, nor take omens, but have trust in their Lord.” (Muslim). According to a tradition reported on the authority of Mughirah bin Shubah, the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: “He who got himself treated by branding, or enchanting, became independent of trust in Allāh.” (Tirmidzi).  

 Abdullah bin Mas’ud has reported that the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) disapproved of ten things one of which was recitation of charms and amulets except by means of the Mu‘awwidhatayn or Mu`awwidhat. (Abu Dawud, Ahmad, Nasā’ie, Ibn Hibban, Hakim). Some ahadith also show that in the beginning the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam)  had altogether forbidden recitation of charms and amulets, but later he allowed it on the condition that is should not smack of polytheism, but one should recite and blow by means of the holy names of Allāh, or the words of the Qur`an. The words used should be understandable and one should know that there is nothing sinful in it, and one should not wholly rely on the recitation of charms but on Allah’s will to make it beneficial.” After the explanation of the religious aspect, let us now see what the Hadith says in this regard. 

Tabarani in As-Saghir has related a tradition on the authority of Ali, saying: “Once the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was stung by a scorpion during the Solat. When the Solat was over, he remarked: God`s curse be on the scorpion: it neither spares a praying one, nor any other. Then he called for water and salt, and started rubbing the place where the scorpion had stung with salt water and reciting Qul ya ayyuhal-kafirun, Qul Huwallāhu ahad, Qul a‘udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq and Qul a‘udhu bi-Rabbin-nas, along with it.” 

Ibn Abbas also has related a tradition to the effect: “The Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) used to recite this invocation over Hasan and Husain: U`idhu kuma bi-kalimat Allāhit-tamati min kulli shaitan-in wa hammati-wa min kulli ayt-in-lam nati: “I give you in the refuge of Allah’s blameless words, from every devil and troublesome thing, and from every evil look.” (Bukhari, Musnad Ahmad, Tirmidzi, Ibn Majah). 

A tradition has been related in Muslim, Muwatta, Tabarani and Hakim about Uthman bin al-As ath-Thaqafi, with a little variation in wording, to the effect that he complained to the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), saying: “Since I have become a Muslim, I feel a pain in my body, which is killing me.” The Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa allam) said: “Place your right hand on the place where you feel the pain, then recite Bismillah thrice, and A‘udhu billahi wa qudratihi min sharri ma ajidu wa uhadhiru (“I seek refuge with Allāh and with His power from the evil that I find and that I fear”) seven times, and rub your hand.” In Muwatta there is the addition: “Uthman bin Abi al-As said: After that my pain disappeared and now I teach the same formula to the people of my house.” 

Musnad Ahmad and Tahawi contain this tradition from Talq bin Ali: “I was stung by a scorpion in the presence of the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam). The Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) recited something and blew over me and rubbed his hand on the affected place.” 

Muslim contains a tradition from Abu Said Khudri, which says: “Once when the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) fell ill, Gabriel came and asked: O Muhammad, are you ill? The Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) answered in the affirmative. Gabriel said: I blow on you in the name of Allāh from everything which troubles you and from the evil of every soul and the evil look of every envier. May Allāh restore you to health. I blow on you in His name.” A similar tradition has been related in Musnad Ahmad on the authority of Ubadah bin as-Samit, which says: “The Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa allam) was unwell. I went to visit him and found him in great trouble. When I re-visited him in the evening I found him quite well. When I asked how he had become well so soon, he said: Gabriel came and blew over me with some words. Then he recited words similar to those reported in the above Hadith. A tradition similar to this has been related on the authority of ‘Aishah also in Muslim and Musnad Ahmad. 

Imam Ahmad in his Musnad has related this tradition from Hafsah, mother of the Faithful: “One day the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) visited me in the house and a woman, named Shifa, was sitting with me. She used to blow on the people to cure them of blisters. The Prophet (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said to her: Teach Hafsah also the formula.” Imam Ahmad, Abu Dawud and Nasā’ie have related this tradition from Shifa bint Abdullah herself, saying: “The Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said to me: Just as you have taught Hafsah reading and writing, so teach her blowing to cure blisters as well.” 

In Muslim there is a tradition from Auf bin Malik al-Ashjal to the effect: “We used to practice blowing to cure diseases. We asked the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) for his opinion in this regard. He said: Let me know the words with which you blow over the people. There is no harm in blowing unless it smacks of polytheism.” 

Muslim, Musnad Ahmad and Ibn Majah contain a tradition from Jabir bin Abdullah, saying: “The Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) had forbidden us blowing to cure disease. Then the people of the clan of Amr bin Hazm came and they said: We had a formula with which we used to blow on the people to cure them of scorpion`s sting (or snake-bite). But you have forbidden us the practice. Then they recited before him the words which they made use of. Thereupon the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: I do not see any harm in it, so let the one who can do good to his brother, do him good.” Another tradition from Jabir bin Abdullah in Muslim is: “The family of Hazm had a formula to cure snake-bite and the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) permitted them to practice it.” This is also supported by the tradition from ‘Aishah, which is contained in Muslim, Musnad Ahmad, and Ibn Majah: “The Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) granted permission to a family of the Ansar for blowing to cure the evils effects of biting by every poisonous creature.” Traditions resembling these have been related from Anas also in Musnad Ahmad, Tirmidzi, Muslim and Ibn Majah, saying that the Holy Prophet gave permission for blowing to cure the bite by poisonous creatures, the disease of blisters and the effects of the evil look.” 

Musnad Ahmad, Tirmidzi, Ibn Majah and Hakim have related this tradition on the authority of Umair, freed slave of Abi al-Laham: “In the pre-Islamic days I had a formula with which I used to blow over the people. I recited it before the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), whereupon he told me to drop out such and such words from it, and permitted me to blow with the rest of it.” 

According to Muwatta, Abu Bakar went to the house of his daughter, ‘Aishah, and found that she was unwell and a Jewish woman was blowing over her. Thereupon he said to her: “Blow over her by means of the Book of Allāh.” This shows that if the people of the Book practice blowing by means of the verses of the Torah and the Gospel, it is also permitted. 

As for the question whether blowing for curing disease is efficacious also, or not, its answer is that the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) not only did not forbid anybody to have recourse to cure and medical treatment but himself stated that Allāh has created a cure for every disease and exhorted his followers to use cures. He himself told the people the remedies for certain diseases, as can be seen in the Hadith in the Kitab at-Tib (Book of Cures). But the cure can be beneficial and useful only by Allah’s command and permission; otherwise if the cure and medical treatment were beneficial in every case, no one would have died in hospitals. Now, if beside the cure and medical treatment, Allah’s Word and His beautiful names also are made use of, or Word and His beautiful names also are made use of, or Allāh is turned to and invoked for help by means of His Word, Names and Attributes in a place where no medical aid is available, it would not be against reason except for the materialists. However, it is not right to disregard intentionally a cure or treatment where it is available, and recourse had only to enchanting and reciting of charms, and the people should start a regular practice of granting amulets as a means of earning their livelihood. 

Many people in this regard argue from Abu Said Khudri’s tradition which has been related in Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidzi, Musnad Ahmad, Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah, and it is supported also by a tradition related in Bukhari on the authority of Ibn Abbas. According to it the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) sent some of his Companions including Abu Said Khudri on an expedition. They stopped on the way at the settlement of an Arabian tribe and requested hospitality from the people, but they refused to extend any hospitality. In the meantime the chief of the tribe was stung by a scorpion and the people came to the travelers to ask if they had any medicine or formula by which their chief could be cured. Abu Said said: “Yes, we do have, but since you have refused us hospitality, we would not treat him unless you promised us to give us something.” They promised to give them a flock of goats (according to some traditions, 30 goats), and Abu Said went and started reciting Surah Al-Fatihah and rubbing his saliva on the affected place. Consequently, the chief felt relieved of the effect of the poison and the people of the tribe gave them the goats as promised. But the Companions said to one another; “Let us not make any use of the goats until we have asked the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) about it”; for they were not sure whether it was permissible to accept any reward for what they had done. So they came before the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and related what had happened. The Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) smiled and said: “How did you know that Surah Al-Fatihah could also be used for curing such troubles? Take the goats and allocate my share also in it.” 

But before one used this Hadith for permission to adopt a regular profession of granting amulets and reciting charms, one should keep in view the conditions under which Abu Said Khudri had recourse to it, and the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) not only held it as permissible but also said that a share for him also should be allocated so that there remained no doubt in the minds of the Companions that such a thing was permissible. The conditions in Arabia in those days were, as they still are, that settlements were situated hundreds of miles apart, there were not hotels and restaurants where a traveler could buy food when he reached one of these after several days` journey. Under such conditions it was considered a moral duty that when a traveler reached a settlement the people of the place should extend hospitality to him. Refusal on their part in many cases meant death for the travelers, and this was looked upon as highly blameworthy among the Arabs. That is why the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) allowed as permissible the act of his Companions. Since the people of the tribe had refused them hospitality, they too refused to treat their chief, and became ready to treat him only on the condition that they should promise to give them something in return. Then, when one of them with trust in God recited Surah Al-Fatihah over the chief and he became well, the people gave the promised wages and the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) allowed that the wages be accepted as lawful and pure. 

In Bukhari the tradition related on the authority of ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas about this incident contains the Allah`s Messenger`s (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) words to the effect: “Instead that you should have acted otherwise, it was better that you recited the Book of Allāh and accepted the wages for it.” He said this in order to impress the truth that Allah’s Word is superior to every other kind of enchanting and practice of secret arts. Furthermore, the Message also was incidentally conveyed to the Arabian tribe and its people made aware of the blessings of the Word that the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) had brought from Allāh. This incident cannot be cited as a precedent for the people who run clinic in the cities and towns for the practice of secret arts and have adopted it as a regular profession for earning livelihood. No precedent of it is found in the life and practice of the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) or his Companions, their followers and the earliest Imams. 

Relation between Surah Al-Fatihah and the Mu‘awwidhatayn

The last thing which is note worthy with regard to the Mu‘awwidhatayn is the relation between the beginning and the end of the Qur`an. Although the Qur’an has not been arranged chronologically, the Allah’s Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)  arranged in the present order the verses and Surahs revealed during 23 years on different occasions to meet different needs and situations not by himself but by the command of Allāh Who revealed them. According to this order, the Qur’an opens with the Surah Al-Fatihah and ends with the Mu‘awwidhatayn . 

Now, let us have a look at the two. 

In the beginning, after praising and glorifying Allāh, Who is Lord of the worlds, Kind, Merciful and Master of the Judgment Day, the servants submits: “Lord, You alone I worship and to You along I turn for help, and the most urgent help that I need from You is to be guided to the Straight Way.” 

In answer, he is given by Allāh the whole Qur’an to show him the Straight Way, which is concluded thus: Man prays to Allāh, Who is Lord of dawn, Lord of men, King of men, Deity of men, saying: “I seek refuge only with You for protection from every evil and mischief of every creature, and in particular, from the evil whisperings of devils, be they from among men or jinn, for they are the greatest obstacle in following the Straight Way.”

 

The relation that the beginning bears with the end cannot remain hidden from anyone who has understanding and insight. 

And Allāh Almighty Knows best.

[Excerpted from “The Meaning of the Qur’an“ by Sayyid Abul `Ala Maududi via USC]