Home » Islam » Islamic History » The Verse of Maarij
  Services
   About Us
   Islamic Sites
   Special Occasions
   Audio Channel
   Weather (Mashhad)
   Islamic World News Sites
   Yellow Pages (Mashhad)
   Kids
   Souvenir Album
  Search


The Verse of Maarij

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
One demanding, demanded the chastisement which must befall.
The unbelievers there is none to avert it.
From Allah, the Lord of the ways of Ascent.

EVENTS STIMULATED BY THE QURAISHIS
For citing the exegesis of Verse of Maarij, it is necessary to remark a deal of serious events that cropped up during the last days of the Prophet’s lifetime. Some were proved to be provoked by the Quraishis, while there are many indications directing fingers of accusation to the Quraishis as their originators.
First event: The attempt to assassinate the Prophet during the battle of Hunein. In the previous fifth discussion, we have discussed this event.
Second event: The attempt to assassinate the Prophet in Aqaba when he was back from the battle of Tabuk. This attempt, given effect by twenty hypocrites, was planned so properly. This group knew that the Prophet would take the mountainside alone that night, while the army would take the other. They planned to waylay aloft that mountain and as soon as the Prophet would reach the narrowest point, they would throw rocks as much as possible, so that they would hit him. Then, they would run away and hide among the Muslims’ groups. They aimed at seizing the Prophet’s authority as they would show their deepest grief for him.
The Lord respited them. When they were about to throw rocks, Gabriel came and lit that mountain. The Prophet could see and recognize them. He called them by names. Hutheifa Bin Al-Yeman and Ammar Bin Yasir; the Prophet’s companions, could see and recognize them. The Prophet made them the witnesses on that cabal.
The hypocrites had nothing to do other than descending the mountain as speedy as possible to hide among the Muslims’ group.
There is no reason for the Prophet’s masking their names other than their being Quraishis and celebrities, and declaring their names would certainly lead to punishing them. Punishing would mean danger of their apostasy. This would mean that they would convince some of the Arab tribes of apostasy. They would evidence that Mohammed had given everything to the Hashemites and deprived the Quraishis and the Arabs. This would create an ill reputation of Islam, since it would be said that the Prophet disputed his companions who believed him, and fought them. This would lead to the arising of new battles the results of which would not be better than the earlier.
Hence, the divine solution is keeping the matter locked as long as those men admitted Islam and Mohammed’s prophesy, and gainsaid the matter.
It is apparent that narrations that referred to the cabal of Aqaba named famous Quraishi personalities that the Quraishi hadithists had to decide their doubtfulness. The majority, however, decide trustfulness of Ibn Jumei and the other narrators who mentioned the names of directors and the executors of that cabal.
Narrations related to Hutheifa and Ammar whom were asked, by the Quraishi celebrities, whether they had seen them on that night or not, are recorded in the Sunni reference books of hadith. Besides, such celebrities attempted to gain the acquittal of hypocrisy from Hutheifa and Ammar.
The reference books of hadith are also filled in with narratives asserted that people could discriminate the faithful from the hypocrites, after their death, when they were noticing whether Hutheifa offered them the ritual funeral prayer or not. Finally, they narrated that Hutheifa did not offer the ritual funeral prayer to any of the Quraishi chiefs at all.
Third event: Story of sura of Tahrim. This story imparts that one of the Prophet’s wives violated his instructions of concealing the news he had recounted to her exclusively. Moreover, she, backed by her well-wisher, worked for the Quraishis against her husband. The Lord informed His Prophet of her divulging the secret, and the Prophet conveyed this divine information to her friend, who was also one his wives, and her. Thence, the Quran revealed her secret and the intendments of those she backed, and threatened a punishment, and cited the wives of Noah and Lot, who were atheists since they betrayed their husbands and were immortalized in the hell-fire, as example.
The pro-Quraish hadithists made the matter a mere family affairs respecting the many wives exchangeable jealousy, and some ineffective flaws with the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family).
They intend to make us close our eyes before the evident Verses of sura of Tahrim that divulge a striking danger countered by the Prophet and the divine mission, and enlists a great army for defying that situation. God says: (If you both turn to Allah, then indeed your hearts are already inclined; and if you back each other against him, then surely Allah it is Who is his Guardian, and Gabriel and the believers that do good, and the angels after that are the aiders.)
Towards whom their hearts were inclined? For whom did they back each other against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family)? What sort of family affairs is that incited that great army of God used only in cases of ultimate emergency?
Ibn Abbas, whom is named ‘preacher of the nation’ used to interpret ‘inclined’ into ‘deviated’. On that account, two of the Ummul Muminin’s needed to renew their converting to Islam.
Fourth event: For a whole month, the Prophet abandoned his wives and settled in house of Maria the Coptic, which was on the outskirts.
The pro-Quraish hadithists described the matter, in which the Prophet, the revelation and Muslims were engaged, as a personal affair. They cited the frequent demands of the Prophet’s wives as the reason that made him abandon and confine himself in Maria’s house for a whole month. They asserted that the Islamic issues that occupied the political area to excess and that engaged the Quraishi chiefs in particular, had nothing to do with the incident.
Fifth event: The Quraishis worked so hard for offending against Ali Bin Abi Talib’s identity. The Prophet was very much irate. He defended Ali and honored his identity. This matter can be obviously heeded all over the Prophet’s hours of war, peace, journey and residence. It is also noticeable that it increased in the last period of the Prophet’s lifetime who was often enraged because of it, and sermonized oftentimes for declaring the merits of Ali (peace be upon him) and the deviation and atheism of everybody who hurts him.
The story of Bureida Al-Aslemi is sufficiently adequate for evidencing the matter. This overwhelming story was recorded in the Sunni reference books of hadith in many different ways of narration and highly regarded documentations. It registers the Prophet’s reproaching those who malign Ali, and his declaring that Ali shall be people’s master after him, and deciding the hypocrisy of everyone who criticizes, detests or disobeys Ali.
This event shows the Quraishi chiefs’ bearing malice and envy against Ali (peace be upon him).
Seventh event: The Quraishi chiefs precluded people from registering the Prophet’s traditions and sayings during his lifetime. Majority of people used to record the Quranic texts as soon as they were revealed. The Prophet gave the orders of installing the Quranic texts, that are freshly revealed, between the pulpit and the wall. Secondly, papers and ink were available for recording these texts.
Ali was wont to record the entire Quranic texts and the prophetic that the Prophet ordered of recording. Others also wrote down the prophetic texts. Abdullah Bin Amr Bin Al-As; the young Quraishi, used to write down, too.
While some of the Quraishi chiefs used to record the Jewish culture and attend their classes on Saturdays,* they prevented people from recording the Prophet’s traditions, because they recognized the falling of a great danger if the Prophet’s words praising his household, progeny and the Hashemites, and cursing a great number of the Quraishi celebrities, would settle in the hands of the coming generations.
The reference books of hadith did not overlook the incident when Abdullah Bin Amr complained before the Prophet that (people of Quraish) deprived him of recording the prophetic texts and traditions.
Abu Dawud’s As-Sunan; 2/176:
..Abdullah Bin Amr: People of Quraish told me not to record every single word said by the Prophet (peace be upon him) since he was an ordinary human who may be erring when he is enraged. I ceased the recording and told the Prophet of their words. He pointed at his mouth with the finger and ordered: “Record every thing. By the Prevailing of my soul I take the oath, nothing but truth comes out of my mouth.”**
Seventh event: An attempt to assassinate the Prophet was planned in his way back from the Farewell Pilgrimage at Arsha. This cabal was divulged by the divine revelation. It was greatly similar to that occurred after the battle of Tabuk.
Eighth event: The Quraishis escalated their criticism directed to the Prophet’s procedures of focusing the position of his family and clan; the Hashemites, among people. Some objected candidly and shamelessly. They demanded with making the position of leadership include the entire clans of Quraish, or selecting other persons for sharing Ali’s position. The Prophet rejected all these demands, since the matter was not his. It was God’s concern. He was no more than a servant and an apostle whose mission is conveying the Lord’s messages.
Previously, we have introduced the following quotation from Asharif Al-Murteda’s Tanzihul Anbiya; 167:
As soon as the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) nominated Ali Bin Abi Talib for the next leadership, a group of Quraishi people came and stated: “O God’s messenger! People have no long span in Islam. They displease the matter that your cousin; Ali Bin Abi Talib, will hold leadership while you held prophesy. You’d better have another decision.”
The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) replied: “That was not my decision that I may alter. It was the Lord’s. It is He Who ordered me of and imposed it upon me.”
They suggested: “Well then. You may conjoin a man of Quraish to him, so that people will be satisfied, and your affairs will be affirmative.”
Ninth event: While the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) was diseased, he formed an army in which the entire Quraishi chiefs, excepting the Hashemites, were enlisted. The commandment of that army was given to Usama Bin Zeid. The Prophet gave that young African Muslim the orders of marching towards Muta in Jordan for battling the Romans. The Prophet’s purpose beyond this process was enhancing the power of the Islamic state and revenging the martyrs of battle of Muta. He also aimed at taking the opposers of Ali’s leadership away from Al-Madina just before his decease.
Usama and his army camped out of Al-Madina. The Quraishi chiefs showed reluctance to join that army so that they would fail the Prophet’s plan. They also worked on detaining as great numbers of the army as possible. Finally, they criticized the Prophet’s orders of selecting Usama; the young, for commandment. Hence, they were procrastinating the operation of that army so that they would gain time.
As a reply on such behaviors, the Prophet ascended the pulpit and emphasized on expediting the march of Usama’s army. He also declared that God; the Exalted, and he would curse those who would fall behind.
Tenth event: The Quraishis augmented their efforts aimed for opposing the Prophet directly whenever he would bring Ali and his household to position of leadership officially.
Omar Bin Al-Khattab; the new chief of Quraish, discharged the mission of opposing the Prophet openly. The Prophet summoned chiefs of Quraish and Ansar, during his final disease, and declared that he would record a document saving his nation against deviation forever. They realized that this document would mean nominating Ali and his household (peace be upon them) for the next leadership officially and documentarily. Therefore, Omar faced him candidly and said: “No, we do not lack your document and your security against deviation. We also do not want your traditions and people. We are sufficed by Allah’s Book. Exegesis of this Book is our concern, not yours or your household’s.”
The attendees, from the Quraishis and the deceived Ansar, supported Omar and shouted before their Prophet: “We do support Omar’s saying.”
Those who came to see their Prophet in his last hours were engaged in discrepancy. They used impolite words on their Prophet’s head. Some supported the Prophet’s will and ordered of implementing it, and the majority went on shouting: “We do support Omar’s saying. Fetch him nothing. Let him not record.”
It is most likely that Gabriel attended these moments of dispute. He visited the Prophet recurrently these days. The Prophet might seek his advice. The Angel might informed the Prophet of the successful consummation of his mission and perfection of God’s claim against people. He might also instructed that insistence on recording that suggested document might have achieved the Quraishis’ apostasy, and the most acceptable solution in such a situation should be despising and dismissing them.
Hence, the Prophet said: “Leave me! It is inappropriate to issue disputation before a prophet,” or: “Leave me! The pains I am suffering are easier than what you are dragging me to.”
This story is so familiar that Al-Bukhari records it in six positions of his Sahih. Ibn Abbas called this incident ‘calamity of Thursday’.
Eleventh event: Owing to the harsh fever, the Prophet was fainted for minutes and then regaining his consciousness. That was during his final disease. He could understand that some of those encompassing him intended to pour a drug in his mouth while he had been fainted. When he regained, he told them not to give him any medicine while he would be fainted. On the contrary, as soon as the Prophet was fainted, they poured a medicine in his mouth. He vomited it, but they used force to pour.
When he regained consciousness, the Prophet reprimanded them and ordered the all of consuming that medicine. The Hashemites were excluded.
Hence, narratives assert that the entire attendees consumed some of that (medicine).
In the reference books of hadith, this incident is named ‘coercing the Prophet on having the medication’. It is important to study this incident carefully. It might have been an attempt for poisoning the Prophet.
These were the events introduced as an overture for discussing Verse of Maarij. As a matter of fact, each of these events can be a thesis of a Ph.D. degree, if studied deliberately. The Quraishis should be listed on the top if it is necessary to identify the actual stars of these events and the brains planning. For more identification, it is advisable to focus more light on the relation between the Quraishis and the Jews.
This strange matter displays how the Lord protected His Apostle (peace be upon him and his family) against apostasy and atheism of the Quraishis during his lifetime.
At any rate, the Prophet was not protected against their harm and plots. That is the unchangeable course taken by the entire prophets (peace be upon them).

THE QURAISHIS’ NEW PREPARATIONS AFTER THE GHADIR DAY
Caravan of prophesy and imamate left Ghadir Khum and went towards Al-Madina. The Prophet’s heart was calmed and tranquil. Meanwhile, the Quraishis could not see calmness. They boiled due to their spite.
This is the wording of narratives and incidents. The Quraishis would never assuage unless they would see the painful agony. The truth-tongued the honest, who speaks only out of the divine revelation, said: “O people of Quraish! You shall not cease unless when you see the painful agony.”
We are to repeat that Verse of Isma does not mean that God had paved the path of His Apostle or made the Quraishis behave as serene as a trained horse. It is true that nothing at all can stop in the face of God’s competence. But the Lord wills that things abide according to reasons and criteria, and applies traditions of the previous nations to this nation, so He will test them in the matter of obeying and disobeying the Prophet. This requires their faculty to disobey, not apostatize before him. They were so able to face the Prophet with these words: “We do reject your will, tradition and household. We are sufficed with Allah’s Book.” This is the climax. A red line was drawn after this. This is God’s will.
Through numerous events of the Farewell Pilgrimage, the Lord’s protection was achieved. It was achieved in Mecca, Arafat and the three sermons in Mina, especially that of Kheif Mosque.
The Quraishis saw no relief before the Prophet’s departure without demanding with swearing allegiance to Ali’s coming leadership.
For the Exalted Lord that was not enough. The divine orders of stopping the Muslims were descended to the Prophet who had just reached the heart of desert where there were no fodder for their pack animals, and no food for them except a small garden of few trees and sparse water. In that burning midday, the preceding Muslims were about to put their feet on the land of Al-Juhafa; that inhabited city, after a three-day walking. But the Prophet ordered them of being back in Ghadir Khum.
In the midst of these intolerable circumstances, the Prophet ascended the pulpit in an hour other than that of the obligatory prayer, and raised his cousin; Ali Bin Abi Talib, from the hand and addressed at Muslims: “This shall be your master after me. Then comes Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein and nine individuals from Al-Hussein’s offspring.”
In this situation, the divine promise of protection twinkled apparently. The Lord shut the Quraishis’ mouths so that they would not oppose or object. Their mouths were open for acceding only. They all shouted: “We do witness that you have conveyed your Lord’s messages. You have been the excellent Apostle. We have heard and do obey.” Afterwards, they hurried to Ali’s tent for offering congratulations on the position of leadership. They also showed compliments when God revealed: (This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed on you My favor and chosen for you Islam as a religion.) They lent their ears to Hassan Bin Thabit’s poem in which he described the Prophet’s call and conveying the Lord’s mandate of nominating Ali for the next leadership.
Offering of congratulations lasted to night when darkness did not preclude Muslims from offering their congratulations to Ali; therefore, the Prophet had to pass the night in that Ghadir of imamate. After the Fajr -dawn- prayer, the Prophet moved.
Other narratives affirm that the Prophet had to settle for two days there.
It was God’s concern and incomparable competence that knocked over the Quraishis’ ability of spoiling ceremonies of Ghadir, and knotted their tongues which are notorious objectors and impolite to the prophets, and made them opt for letting that day, on which the Prophet granted the Hashemites and Ali whatever he willed, pass peacefully.
This was the Lord’s style of protecting the Prophet against the Quraishis’ apostasy. There must have been greater divine favors we could not receive.
There was another style. It was the divine punishment. Like the Jews in their prophets’ reigns, the Quraishis did receive this style thoroughly.

HEAVENLY STONES FOR THE QURAISHIS’ SPOKESMEN
In the Muslims’ reference books of hadith, there are narratives mentioning various names of those who objected against the Prophet’s nominating Ali for the coming leadership in Ghadir Khum.
It is perceivable that some of these names referred to a definite person, but it was clerical error. Others were names of different persons, since that divine punishment was descended in different forms. This leads to repetition of the incident.
Names of those whom were inflicted by heavenly stones or punishment are Jabir Bin An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith Bin Kilda Al-Abdari, Al-Harith Bin An-Numan Al-Fihri, Al-Harth Bin An-Numan Al-Fihri, Amr Bin Utba Al-Makhzumi, An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith Al-Fihri, Al-Harith Bin Amr Al-Fihri, An-Numan Bin Al-Harith; the Jew, An-Numan Bin Al-Munthir Al-Fihri, Amr Bin Al-Harith Al-Fihri, a man from sons of Teim, a Bedouin, a Bedouin from Najd who belongs to sons of Jafar Bin Kelab Bin Rabia.
Saving the Bedouin and the Jew, all those are Quraishi men. Besides, there is no single individual from Ansar among them. It is unfamiliar for Ansar to protest against any privilege the Prophet gave to his progeny exclusively. Yet, they showed disloyalty to those household after the Prophet’s decease.
The incident, in abstract, is that one, or more, of those persons protested against the Prophet’s nominating Ali for the coming leadership, and accused the Prophet of passing his personal caprices in the form of divine mandate. Although the Prophet asserted that the decision had been the Lord’s, the man was not convinced. He left the place very irate and asked the Lord to rain him with a heavenly stone if the matter was His mandate. The Lord did inflict him with a heavenly stone that killed him, or inflicted him with a heavenly flame that burned him.
From this incident, it is understandable that the Lord used a threatening style with the Quraishis for protecting His Apostle against their apostasy. Consequently, they could perceive that failure would be the decisive result of any political combat with the Prophet, and that they should wait for his decease.
We are to refer to the most notable questions inferred from this incident.

FIRST QUESTION
THE SUNNI REFERENCE BOOKS OF HADITH RECORD THE INCIDENT

In addition to Shias, Sunnis record the incident. Abu Ubeid Al-Harawi was the first scholar who recorded the incident in Gharibul Qur’an.
Menaqibu Aali Abi Talib; 2/240:
Abu Ubeid, Athalabi, An-Neqqash, Sufian Bin Uyeina, Ar-Razi, Al-Qizwini, An-Nisapuri, At-Tebirsi and At-Tusi; all those recorded the following incident:
After the Prophet’s conveying the Lord’s mandate in Ghadir Khum had been prevailing among people, Al-Harith Bin An-Numan Al-Fihri -or Jabir Bin An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith Bin Kilda Al-Abdari, according to Abu Ubeid’s report- came to the Prophet and said: “O Mohammed! You have conveyed us the Lord’s mandates of declaring there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is being the Apostle of Allah, and performing the prayers, the fasting, the pilgrimage, and defraying the poor rate. All these, we have admitted, were not enough for you till you raised your cousin from the arm and preceded him to us and said: ‘He whosever master was I, Ali should by his master.’ Is this matter originated from your person or is it God’s mandate?”
“By Allah there is no god but Whom I take the oath, this is surely God’s mandate,” asserted the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family).
Jabir turned his face towards his pack animal while saying: “O Allah! If Mohammed’s words have been true, then rain us with a heavenly stone, or inflict a painful chastisement upon us.” Before Jabir could reach his pack animal, the Lord rained him with a stone that fell on the head and went out from the anus. He was killed. Consequently, God revealed: (One demanding…
Some of Shiite scholars; such as the compilers of Abaqatul Anwar, Al-Ghadir, Ihqaqul Haq, Nafahatul Azhar et al, compute Sunni scholars who recorded this incident. Although they were more than thirty, we are to refer to twelve only:
1. Al-Harawi, Abu Ubeid. (…-223) He mentions the incident in his book of Tafsir: Gharibul Qur’an.
2. Al-Baghdadi, Abu Bakr An-Neqash Al-Mosuli. (…-351) He mentions the incident in Tafsir.
3. Athalabi, Abu Isaaq An-Nisapuri. (…-427) He mentions the incident in Al-Keshfu Wel Bayan.
4. Al-Hasakani, Al-Hakim Abul-Qasim. He refers to the incident in Eda’u Haqqil Muwalat.
5. Al-Qurtubi, Abu Bakr Yahya. (…-567) He mentions the incident in Tafsir.
6. Abul Mozaffar, Shamsuddin; the grandson of Ibnul-Jawzi. (…-645) He mentions the incident in At-Tadkira.
7. Al-Hamawini, Sheikul Islam. (…-722) He mentions the incident in Feraidus Simtein; Chapter 13. He relates it to Al-Wahidi, Athalabi and Sufian Bin Uyeina.
8. Al-Imadi, Abus Saud. (…-982) In Tafsir; 8/292, he records:
It is said that Al-Harth Bin An-Numan Al-Fihri came, after he had received the Prophet’s saying: ‘he whosever master was I, Ali shall be his master’…
9. Ashirbini, Shamsuddin Al-Qahiri Ashafii. (…-977) In As-Sirajul Munir;4/364, he records:
People provided different names for that who was hit by a heavenly stone. Ibn Abbas named him An-Nadr Bin Al-Harth, while others named him Al-Harth Bin An-Numan…
10. Al-Halabi, Burhanuddin Ali. (…-1044) In As-Siretul Halabiya; 3/302, he records:
After the Prophet’s declaration had been common among people, Al-Harth Bin An-Numan Al-Fihri…
11. Al-Hafni, Shamsuddin Ashafii. (…-1181) In Sharhul Jamiil Shaghir; 2/387, he refers to the incident through discussing the Prophet’s saying: “He whosever master was I, Ali shall be his master.”
12. Azzarqani, Abu Ali Al-Maliki. (…-1122) In Sharhul Mawahibul Ludeniya…

SECOND QUESTION
WAS SURA OF MAARIJ REVEALED IN MECCA OR AL-MADINA

The general sense of Verses of sura of Maarij, till Verse 36, seems to be revealed in Al-Madina, since it comprises legislations similar to those of Nur and Muminin. While the rest seem to be revealed in Mecca for their referring to questions of the belief and the Hereafter. In due course, it is difficult to recognize the place of the revelation. At any rate, Quranists cite a number of restraints for distinguishing the Verses revealed in Mecca from those revealed in Al-Madina. Yet, these restraints are not that accurate and objective.
On that ground, we should regard the second part of the sura as revealed in Mecca, while the first in Al-Madina, but it was preceded thereafter.
This regard should not be more than a surmise. The text of the sura is the decisive criterion on which the place of the revelation is identified. The text is contradictory in Sunni, as well as Shiite, reference books of hadith and Tafsir. Sunnis, however, reckon the sura with those revealed in Mecca.
It is not unlikely that Shias prefer this opinion, too. In his Sharhul Akhbar; 1/241, An-Numan relates that Imam As-Sadiq (peace be upon him) said: “By God, the sura was revealed in Mecca to show manners of those who dissented the mastership of Ali (peace be upon him).”
The imam meant that although the sura was revealed in Mecca, it intends those who protested against the Prophet’s declaring leadership of Ali in Al-Madina thereafter.
Al-Kuleini’s Al-Kafi; 5/450:
Parties of the following dialogue were Abu Hanifa and Abu Jafar Mohammed Bin An-Numan:
Abu Hanifa: O Abu Jafar! What is your opinion about the temporary marriage? Do you see it be lawful?
Abu Jafar: Yes, I do.
Abu Hanifa: What then prevents you from applying it on your harem so that they will earn good fortune for you?
Abu Jafar: Not all professions are acceptable although lawful. People, in addition, enjoy different standings they should keep. But what is your opinion about wine? Do you see it be lawful?
Abu Hanifa: Yes, I do.
Abu Jafar: What then prevents you from urging your women on jobbing as waitresses in pubs so that they will earn good fortune for you?
Abu Hanifa: Well, one for one, and yours is more effective. O Abu Jafar! The Verse in sura of Maarij discloses unlawfulness of the temporary marriage, and the Prophet’s saying repeals it.
Abu Jafar: Sura of Maarij was revealed in Mecca, and Verse of the temporary marriage in Al-Madina, and your recital has been ridiculous and random.
Abu Hanifa: Verse of the heritage discloses the repeal of that of the temporary marriage, too.
Abu Jafar: It happens that spouses do not inherit each other lawfully.
Abu Hanifa: How come?
Abu Jafar: If a Muslim husband is dead while his wife is Jewess or Christian? Is it lawful for her to receive his heritage?
Abu Hanifa: It is unlawful for her to receive his heritage?
Abu Jafar: In this way it happens that spouses do not inherit each other lawfully.
Abu Hanifa referred to God’s saying: (And those who guard their private parts, except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess,)* that is in sura of Maarij. Abu Jafar, whom is called Muminuttaq, answered that this Verse had been revealed in Mecca while God’s saying: (Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed,) was revealed in Al-Madina later on. It is then impracticable for the previous to repeal the recent.
The most accurate answer for Abu Hanifa’s question is that temporary wives are reckoned with the legitimate wives referred to in God’s saying: (Except in the case of their wives.) A good deal of Sunni scholars issued legality of marrying a woman when it is intended to divorce her the next day. This is the very temporary marriage they are criticizing us for.
Furthermore, Abu Hanifa himself issued that it is licit to copulate with the she-hireling whom is employed for house services even there is no permanent or temporary bond of marriage between them. He inferred this verdict from the ruling that marriage is included in terms of the lease contract.
This verdict is more inclusive than the temporary marriage that is authorized by Shiite jurisprudence, since Shias specify the marriage contract as a provision of legitimacy of that marriage, while Abu Hanifa makes it boundless.
Back to the topic, the sura’s being revealed in Mecca does not act upon authenticity of the narrative involving that the befalling chastisement mentioned in the Verse is dedicated to that befell on those who protest against the Prophet’s nominating Ali for the coming leadership. This incident is seen as an interpretation of the Verse and a foretelling carried by Gabriel; the angel.
The previous narrative of Sharhul Akhbar supports this meaning. Moreover, later on we are to refer to another narrative stating:
“…He was inflicted by the thunderbolt and burnt. Soon, Gabriel descended: “O Mohammed! Recite: (One demanding…
This means that Gabriel carried the application or the interpretation of the Verse previously revealed.
The Shiite narratives divulge that the chastisement inflicted on that Al-Abdari or Al-Fihri was only a tiny part of the befalling chastisement promised by the Lord. Most of that chastisement shall be descended gradually, supporting or paving the way for the advent of Imam Al-Mahdi.*
Ali Bin Ibrahim Al-Qummi’s Tafsir; 2/385:
Abu Jafar (peace be upon him) was asked about the meaning of God’s saying: (One demanding…) The imam answered: “That shall be a fire coming forth from the west. An angel shall drive it from behind till it reaches the house of sons of Sa’d Bin Hemmam that is near their mosque. The fire shall never leave a single house for the Umayids saved from burning. It shall also burn all the houses that partook in persecuting Mohammed’s family. That shall be Al-Mahdi (peace be upon him).
An-Numani’s Al-Gheiba; 272:
… Jafar Bin Mohammed (peace be upon him): The interpretation of God’s saying: (One demanding…,) indicates the coming divine chastisement that shall befall in Thawiya. It is a fire coming over Kenasa to Thaqif. It shall not leave a single house that persecuted Mohammed’s family without burning. That shall be in the vicinity of the advent of Al-Mahdi (peace be upon him).
The places mentioned in the two narratives are some quarters of Kufa which shall be taken as the capital.
Imam As-Sadiq’s saying, “indicates the coming divine chastisement,” asserts that this befalling chastisement is an open menace some of which was befallen on polytheists and hypocrites in the past, and some shall inflict the rest. This is the most suitable exegesis that coincides the open threat of the Verse and the Lord’s norm of triumphing His religion and adherents.

THIRD QUESTION
THE CHASTISEMENT IS MUNDANE OR HEREAFTER

Apart from exegeses of the sura, it is observable that the topic and pivot of the sura refers to the Hereafter chastisement totally. The Verses do not show any sort of condemn directed to that demander who might be an ordinary guiltless asker. It is also possible that that the demander might be a suppliant seeking that chastisement. Throughout providing the various opinions of the exegesists regarding the Verse, Al-Qurtubi refers to the opinion that the suppliant of that chastisement is being Noah; the prophet, or our Prophet (peace be upon him and his family).
A question may jump: What for then did Sunni and Shiite exegesists affirm that the Verse included the mundane chastisement, and that demander challenged and belied?
The answer is lexicological. The Arabic item (sa’ala bi) refers to asking about a matter challengingly and denyingly. The item indicates that the demander has already heard of such a mundane and Hereafter chastisement from the Prophet who used to threat and forewarn; therefore, he demanded with it challengingly and denyingly. The Lord answered him through these Verses. Despite that the Lord emphasized on the Hereafter chastisement and its features, since it is the basic and the most important and incessant, He did not negate the mundane one.
The sura proclaims: “O you who are deriding the chastisement forewarned by Our Apostle! Surely whatever he has menaced shall befall, whether in this world or in the Hereafter. Nothing shall guard the atheists against it. Hence, you are advised to believe in God so that you shall avoid that chastisement since the Lord protects the believers against His chastisement.”
God’s saying, (The unbelievers there is none to avert it,) negates the possibility of averting that chastisement away from the unbelievers. In other words, this chastisement is inevitable for the unbelievers who deserve it. Besides, it is also unavoidable for those spoke ‘We believe’ externally only. Yes, repentance and seeking the Lord’s forgiveness avert that chastisement.
It is not unlikely that (the unbelievers) mentioned in the Verse stands for the linguistic meaning, and then those who disbelieve a part of God’s marvels or graces are included even if they were Muslims.
The linguistic meaning of an item is the origin, while the terminological should be accepted when it is evidenced. Hence, the linguistic should be preceded to the terminological whenever the meaning is doubted.
Sunni exegesists are engaged in incoherence through providing their opinions about the sura. They allocate (the chastisement which must befall) to the Hereafter chastisement, and excluded Muslims, meanwhile, they dedicate that chastisement to An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith Al-Abdari who was killed during the battle of Badr. Thenceforth, it comprehended the earthly chastisement.
There is a manifest course adopted by Sunni exegesists. They always endeavor to refer to the Hereafter chastisement as the only purport of Verses of chastisement all over the holy Quran especially those pointing at people of Quraish. Sometimes, they hang that chastisement in the necks on the Jews and Christians so that they may take it away from Muslims, including the hypocrites.
This trend dragged them to state that the Lord did not respond to His Apostle’s supplication against his people. Moreover, they accused him of being reprimanded by the Lord Who said: (You have no concern in the affair…)
On that account, the Quraishi authorities accentuated the claim of the Lord’s fixing upon the Quraishis and disallowing censuring them, and reckoned them, falsely, with the prophetic texts, even if such a claim imputed inaccuracy and offense to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Hence, such claims are found in the reference books of hadith and Tafsir.
In case they were having to confess that one of the Quraishi Pharaohs had been inflicted to a mundane chastisement, they made it a peculiar state, like that of An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith who was chastised during the battle of Bard.
In his Tafsir; 30/122, Al-Fakhr Ar-Razi opts for this claim when he asserts, during explaining the first Verse of sura of Maarij, that the chastisement which is not averted from the unbelievers shall be in the Hereafter. He adds:
An-Nadr was inflicted to this chastisement during the battle of Badr. This is the most accurate opinion.
Ar-Razi, as it is seen, pursues Sunni scholars who claimed the termination of that promised mundane chastisement. Yet, the sura does not indicate any sort of terminating.
As a matter of fact, the forecited course is less fanatic than that ensued by the official hadithists who disallow ascribing that befalling chastisement to any of the Quraishis including An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith and Abu Jahl. Moreover, it is they who originated accusing the Prophet of being inaccurate and reprimanded by the Lord for supplicating Him against his people.
Al-Bukhari’s; 5/199:
Anas Bin Malik: When Abu Jahl expressed, “O Allah! If this is being the right sent from Thee, then rain us with a heavenly stone or inflict painful chastisement upon us,” God revealed: (But Allah was not going to chastise them while you were among them, nor is Allah going to chastise them while yet they ask for forgiveness.)
The very narrative is repeated in other places of Al-Bukhari’s. In addition, Muslim, on page 129 of part 8, records it.
Readers can hardly ever believe the Sunnis’ exegeses of God’s saying: (You have no concern in the affair.) It is delicate that the Verse denies the Prophet’s enjoying any sort of godhead and association with the Lord, but they explained it as if it strips every prophetic matter enjoyed by him. According to their exegeses, the Verse withdraws Mohammed’s unprecedented morality, wisdom and interest on guiding his people to the right path.
They describe him as a narrow-minded person who bears malice to the Quraishis and aims for assaulting and wronging them. Hence, God revealed His defending those sacred twenty three tribes, and refuted His Prophet’s wronging and assaulting them!!
This topic can be discussed more detailedly if there is enough space.
While both exegesists and hadithists show loyalty to the Quraishis, perplexity is originated when we read the exegesists’ reckoning the killing of a Pharaonic Quraishi chief with the chastisement which must befall, and the hadithists’ claiming the killing of that chief and Abu Jahl’s being out of that chastisement. One of those hadithists, that is Al-Bukhari, considers the question of killing An-Nadr and Abu Jahl as an ordinary death, since the Lord had excluded the Quraishis from His chastisement and reprimanded His Apostle for he had cursed them.
The following incident recorded in Ibn Sa’d’s At-Tabaqat, can be cited as an evidence on the accuracy of the exegesists’ opinion:
When Talha and Az-Zubeir arrived in Basra, they sealed the public treasury. They competed on leading the collective prayer so stubbornly that its time was about to lapse. Finally, they agreed that Abdullah Bin Az-Zubeir and Mohammed Bin Talha should lead the prayers consecutively. Mohammed Bin Talha dragged Abdullah Bin Az-Zubeir, and Abdullah Bin Az-Zubeir dragged Mohammed Bin Talha. They used the ballot. It was Mohammed Bin Talha who won it. In the prayer, he recited: (One demanding…
Mohammed Bin Talha; son of Quraish and Teim, understood that the Verse had been a threat of mundane chastisement; therefore, he cited it as a menace directed at Abdullah Bin Az-Zubeir. Likewise, the incident indicates that the Prophet’s companions who coincided in time of the revelation of the Verse, understood, indisputably, that the mundane chastisement had been included in that chastisement.

FOURTH QUESTION
THE SUNNIS’ JUDGMENT ON THE NARRATIVES

The Sunnis’ judgment on the narrative is not one. Some, such as Abu Ubeid and Athalabi and Al-Hamawini, accept and prefer it to the other opinions. Others record it indirectly. A third group prefer the other opinions. At any rate, none rejects it totally. In the least degree, the narrative is accepted and decided as authentically documented, while other opinions are favored.
Sunni scholars are obliged to regard this narrative. Furthermore, they can adopt it beyond any embarrassment, since the master scholars, such as Abu Ubeid and Sufian Bin Uyeina, who admitted the narrative are too trustful to adopt inauthentic traditions.
Al-Albani, whom is regarded as the leading hadithist in the current age, decides authenticity of a narrative as soon as he perceives that two or three master scholars; such as Ibn Teimiya and At-Thehbi and Ibnul-Qeyim, had authenticated.
Sunni hadithists refer to various ways of narrating that report, related to Hutheifa, Abu Hureira et al.
Detailed information about those who reported and authenticated that narrative are cited in the Sunni, and Shiite reference books such as Abaqatul Anwar, Al-Ghadir, Nafahatul Azhar and others.

MODELS OF THE SUNNIS’ EXEGESES
Ashawkani’s Fetihul Qadir; 5/352:
… That demander was An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith who said: “O Allah! If this is being the truth sent from Thee, then rain us with a heavenly stone or inflict painful chastisement upon us.” An-Nadr was killed during the battle of Badr.
Others identified Abu Jahl or Al-Harith Bin An-Numan Al-Fihri. The earlier is the most suitable for the coming discussion.
On page 356 of the same book, Ashawkani mentions the narratives identified Mecca as the place where the Verse was revealed, and An-Nadr, none else, as the man upon whom the chastisement was inflicted. He disregards the narratives that identified Jabir or Al-Harith Al-Fihri. Similarly, he does not refer to narrators of the other narratives and the reason due to which he prefers.
It would be acceptable to some extent if Ashawkani showed no single signal to the other narratives.
Shamsuddin Ashirbini Al-Qahiri, whose death was in 977, was fairer. In Tafsir, he mentions the two reasons together.
Abaqatul Anwar; 7/398:
Shamsuddin Ashirbinin records: Various opinions were cited for identifying that demander who demanded a chastisement which must befall. Ibn Abbas mentions An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith. Others mention Al-Harith Bin An-Numan.
When he received the Prophet’s saying: “He whosever master was I, Ali shall be his master,” the man rode his pack animal and came to the Prophet. “O Mohammed!” said he, “You have conveyed us the Lord’s mandates of declaring there is no…
Abu Ubeid ascertains that the previous incident was the very reason beyond revelation of the Verse. This was the conclusion attained by him, exclusively as it seems.
Nafahatul Azhar; 7/291:
Abu Ubeid records: After the Prophet’s conveying the Lord’s mandate in Ghadir Khum had been prevailing among people, Jabir Bin An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith Bin Kilda Al-Abdari came to the Prophet and said: “O Mohammed! You have conveyed us the Lord’s mandates of declaring there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is being the Apostle of Allah, and performing the prayers, the fasting, the pilgrimage, and defraying the poor rate. All these, we have admitted, were not enough for you till you raised your cousin from the arm and preceded him to us and said: ‘He whosever master was I, Ali should by his master.’ Is this matter originated from your person or is it God’s mandate?”
“By Allah there is no god but Whom I take the oath, this is surely God’s mandate,” asserted the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family).
Jabir turned his face towards his pack animal while saying: “O Allah! If Mohammed’s words have been true, then rain us with a heavenly stone, or inflict a painful chastisement upon us.” Before Jabir could reach his pack animal, the Lord rained him with a stone that fell on the head and went out from the anus. He was killed. Consequently, God revealed: (One demanding…
Al-Qurtubi’s Tafsir; 18/278:
…That demander was An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith who said: “O Allah! If this has been the truth sent from Thee, then rain us with a heavenly stone or inflict a painful chastisement upon us.” This man, together with Aqaba Bin Abi Muit, was killed during the battle of Badr. This is the sayings of Ibn Abbas and Mujahid.
Others said that the demander was Al-Harith Bin An-Numan Al-Fihri. Abu Ubeida relates that when this man received the Prophet’s saying, “He whosever master was I, Ali shall be his master,” he came to the Prophet… etc.
Ar-Rabi identifies Abu Jahl as that demander.
Others assert that it was the saying of a group of the Quraishi atheists.
Others identify Noah; the prophet, as the demander when he cursed his people.
Others identify the Prophet (peace be upon him), when he cursed his people and supplicated the Lord to inflict chastisement upon them. They shall never avert it.
…God’s saying, (Then endure with a goodly patience,) means that the Prophet should be tolerant since this chastisement shall be imminent.
Although they prefer the opinion citing An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith and his being killed during the battle of Badr as the exegesis of the Verse, Sunni exegesists record the incident of the heavenly chastisement inflicted on that who protested against the Prophet’s nominating Ali for the coming leadership in Ghadir Khum, as another exegesis.
Sunnis’ listing this opinion in their reference books of Tafsir, proves the most remarkable point which is the actual existence of an official prophetic declaration regarding Ali’s leadership, and the existence of protesters against that declaration. In due course, it is unimportant whether Sunnis prefer the other opinions or not.
A Muslim wants nothing more than Sunni exegesists’ confession of that declaration, no matter whether that chastisement was befallen or not, or sura of Maarij was revealed due to that incident or not. Hence, Shias are advised to show gratitude to those exegesists for their confession.
On the other hand, the first opinion those exegesists preferred should be submitted to a questionnaire.
The most remarkable crux is that their exegesis is not related to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), while the Shias’ is. They relied upon sayings of Ibn Abbas and Mujahid. Moreover, Ikrima, to whom they relate their exegesis, is decided as distrustful by both Sunni and Shiite scholars.
It is rather unanimous that the demand provided in the Verse is actual not metaphoric. An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith, as Sunnis cite, did demand with that befalling chastisement challengingly. He said: “O Allah! If this is the truth sent from Thee, then rain us with a heavenly stone, or inflict a painful chastisement upon us.” Hence, the man was chastised when he was killed in the battle of Badr.
At any rate, this citation is refuted by the fact that the Verse concerned the descending of that heavenly stone was revealed together with the Verses discuss rulings of spoils. They were revealed after the battle of Badr and An-Nadr’s being chastised. On that account, it is irrational to point out that the Lord’s replication to An-Nadr’s demand was revealed in a Verse in Mecca, while the very demand was revealed in a Verse revealed afterwards in Al-Madina. Besides, it was revealed after the demise of that An-Nadr.
The demander’s saying: “O Allah! If this is being the right sent from Thee, then rain us with a heavenly stone or inflict painful chastisement upon us,” is more applicable to Shias’ exegesis. For Sunnis, it means that God should rain the demander with a heavenly stone if the religion was being sent from Him. For Shias, it means that God should rain the demander with a heavenly stone if nominating Ali for the coming leadership was the Lord’s mandate. The latter, seemingly, is more relevant since such a saying is said only when the sayer despairs of having the ability to coincide with a new political status that challenges his tribal situation rooted in his core.
Finally, there is no reasonable contradiction between the exegesis cited by Sunni and that cited by Shias, even if the earlier is acceptable. It is quite practicable that the chastisement which must befall was inflicted upon An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith during the battle of Badr, and upon Jabir Bin An-Nadr; the son, and will be inflicted upon many of those who deserve it.
It is important to refer to the remarkable rule of generalization advisably applied during citing exegesis for the Quranic and other texts.
The Lord answers that who demanded with the chastisement that must befall challengingly. He; the Exalted, asserts the befalling of that chastisement upon the demander and the entire atheists, as well as the believers according to definite extents. Hence, the chastisement is incessant.
It is not unacceptable that the defeats encountered by the disbelievers in battles of Badr and Al-Khandaq was a part of that befalling chastisement which also included the punishment of exsiccation and starvation they had suffered. It also included the punishment of submission and meekness imposed upon them after conquest of Mecca. In like manner, the chastisement inflicted upon those who objected the Prophet’s declaring the next leadership and imamate of Ali and his progeny was included.
Correspondingly, it is unnecessary for Sunni exegesists to restrain the scope of that chastisement to the case of An-Nadr, or a personal question, or a definite age, since the chastisement is being lasting as long as this earth is abiding.
Tens of examples on Sunni exegesists’ groundless limitation and dedication of the Lord’s inclusive wording, especially in Verses regarding the divine mercy and chastisement, can be obviously cited.

FIFTH QUESTION
THE NASSIBITES’ JUDGMENT ON THE NARRATIVE

Before Ibn Teimiya, none of Nassibites refuted and decided inauthenticity of the narrative involved.
Mohammed Rashid Rida, in his Tafsirul Menar, follows Ibn Teimiya who attacked the narrative coarsely and blundered blindly through it.
Misusing the name of his master; Sheik Mohammed Abduh, Rashid Rida was engaged in confusing his ideas with his master’s. He was highly influenced by ideas of Ibn Teimiya and Ibnul-Qeyim. Moreover, he pursued them when he recorded their ideas in his book.
There is an explicit difference between the first two parts of that Tafsirul Menar and the rest. This is by reason that the two first parts were written down in the lifetime of Sheik Mohammed Abduh. Therefore, they are filled in with the influence of the master who was highly broad-minded and acceding to the Prophet’s progeny general mastership. The other parts which were produced after the decease of Sheik Mohammed Abduh, or reprinted, are filled in with very much ill ideas that antagonize the Prophet’s progeny (peace be upon them).
On page 464 of part 6 of Tafsirul Menar, the compiler records the narrative regarding Al-Harith Bin An-Numan Al-Firhri’s objecting against the Prophet’s nominating Ali for the next leadership. He relates the narrative to Athalabi and comments:
This narrative is untrue. Sura of Maarij was revealed in Mecca. In sura of Anfal, which was revealed just after the battle of Badr and many years before the revelation of sura of Maida, the Lord reminded the unbelievers of their previous challenge befalling the chastisement. It is understood, from the narrative, that Al-Harith Bin An-Numan dissented Islam. His name was not with the Prophet’s companions. Al-Abtuh; the place were events of the story occurred, is in Mecca. The Prophet did not return to Mecca after that day in Ghadir. He resided in Ghadir during his journey back from the Farewell Pilgrimage. He went straightly to Al-Madina.
It seems that Rashid Rida could find his intent through Ibn Teimiya’s criticizing the context of the narrative since the documentation was too authentic to be refuted. However, he did not ascribe that criticism to Ibn Teimiya.
The main point, upon which Ibn Teimiya and Rashid Rida depended in criticizing the narrative, is that Al-Abtuh; the place where events of the narrative occurred, was in while time of the events was after the Farewell Pilgrimage. The Prophet did not see Mecca ever again after the Farewell Pilgrimage.
Unintentionally or intentionally, the criticizers neglected that famous place in Al-Madina which is also called Al-Abtuh.
The other point they provided was that the Verse that rendered the unbelievers’ challenging statement was revealed in Al-Madina while sura of Maarij was in Mecca.
They also ignored that the general sense of the first thirty six Verses and the narrative involved suppose and indicate that it was revealed in Al-Madina.
Even if it was revealed in Mecca, there is no flaw if we admit that it was revealed more than once for explication or application. The incident might have been as an application for the sura. As an example we cite that exegesists assert the repetitive revelation of sura of Kawthar for appeasing the Prophet’s heart.
In due course, it is quite acceptable that the Verse was applied on that family. An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith was killed by the Prophet during the battle of Badr, and Jabir; his son, was killed by that heavenly stone in Al-Abtuh that lies in Al-Madina. It is also quite admissible that Gabriel; the angel, affirmed the application of the Verse on that occurrence.
Furthermore, it is reasonless to refute the whole narrative even if it is proved that the Verse was not revealed in that occasion. Hence, the revelation of the Verse alone should be refuted since the rest of the narrative was proved as authentic.
As he discusses the points of Rashid Rida, the compiler of Tafsirul Mizan; 6/54, records:
Rashid Rida’s points are colored with his baseless obduracy. He relies upon some narratives, related to Ibn Abbas and Ibnuz-Zubeir, affirming that sura of Maarij was revealed in Mecca. Like the narrative involved, such narratives are one-way.
Secondly, there is no evidence asserts that the entire Verses of Maarij were revealed in Mecca. It is thoroughly possible that the entire Verses were revealed in Mecca except for the first two.
Thirdly, while he, as well as many exegesists, attest that Verse of Isma was revealed in the earliest stage of the Prophet’s divine mission, it is positioned in the middle of the last sura. In other words, they claim the Verse’s being revealed in Mecca, while it is positioned in sura of Maida, which was revealed in Al-Madina.
Fourthly, it is true that sura of Anfal preceded that of Maida many years. But this does not violate that there are some following Verses positioned in preceding suras. Sunnis claim that Verses of usury and others were the final; meanwhile they are positioned in sura of Baqara; the first sura revealed after the Prophet’s immigration to Al-Madina.
Fifthly, there is another baseless obduracy in Rashid Rida’s considering God’s saying: (And when they said: O Allah! If this has been the truth sent from Thee, then rain upon us a stone from the heavens or inflicted upon us a painful chastisement,) as the Lord’s reminding the unbelievers of their previous challenge the befalling of chastisement.
Setting of the text indicates the opposite. Moreover, it is quite palpable for every one who has a certain acquaintance of rhetoric that the previous words must have been said by an individual who did believe in Allah and accept that the right matters and mandates are proposed by Him. But he stopped and suspected a matter ascribed to the Lord. Hence, he supplicated the Lord to curse him if it would be the truth.
Sixthly, another baseless obduracy is checked in his claiming Al-Harith Bin An-Numan’s being apostate and non-Sahabi. It is impossible to count names of all those who saw and believed in the Prophet, and those who apostatized.
Seventhly, the man claimed that Al-Abtuh was a place in Mecca that the Prophet left before the incident of Ghadir Khum. As a matter of fact, Abtuh is a name called at every mound. Besides, there is no evidence proving that the narrative referred to that Abtuh of Mecca in specific. Besides, except Athalabi’s, other narratives do not refer to Al-Abtuh in their reports.
At length, it is a one-way report. Its authenticity is not proved by decisive affidavit. As a rule, the one-way narratives are not counted except in secondary rulings. We only aimed for showing inaccuracy of the topics depended upon by Rashid Rida.
The Previous answers introduced by the compiler of Al-Mizan are indisputable evidences that refuted Rashid Rida’s discussion. Anyhow, the compiler should have reviewed the reference books and narrators of the narrative, and the theses of Al-Amini, in the first volume of Al-Ghadir, and An-Naqawi Al-Hindi, in Abaqatul Anwar; 7-8, before he decided it as a one-way report.
The following is a precise proposition of Al-Amini’s thesis introduced in his Al-Ghadir; 1/239:
Shias assured that God’s saying, (One demanding…,) was revealed just after the Prophet’s declaration in Ghadir. Besides, a great number of the most remarkable Sunni reference books of Tafsir and hadith assert this fact…
Al-Amini then refers to thirty master hadithists who recorded the narratives involved. Two of them preceded Athalabi. After that, he refutes detailedly the points mentioned by Ibn Teimiya in his Minhajus Sunna; 4/13. The following is a brief proposition of these points:
First point: Ibn Teimiya discusses that Al-Abtuh, in which the incident occurred, was a place in Mecca, while his declaration of nominating Ali for the coming leadership was in Ghadir Khum during his journey back to Al-Madina.
The answer is that Al-Halabi, in As-Sira, and Ibnul-Jawzi, in At-Tethkira, and Mohammed Sadrulalem, in Maarijul-Ali, affirm that the incident happened in mosque of Al-Madina. Moreover, Al-Halabi refers to Al-Madina directly. Nevertheless, Ibn Teimiya neglects all these reports and goes on refuting the narrative from the base. Had he reviewed the reference books of hadith, lexicon, geography and literature, he would have realized that Al-Abtuh is a name of any mound.
Al-Bukhari, in Sahih; 1/181, and Muslim, in; 1/382, relate to Abdullah Bin Omar that the Prophet settled in Al-Abtuh of Thilhalifa, which is a place in Al-Madina.
Second point: Scholars agree that sura of Maarij was revealed in Mecca ten years before that incident in Ghadir Khum.
The answer is that those scholars agree that the sura, generally, was revealed in Mecca. They do not affirm that the entire Verses were revealed there; therefore, it is possible that some Verses were revealed in Al-Madina. This is habitual in most of the suras.
It is also understandable that the order of Verses in a sura does not necessarily expose the same order in revelation, and that classifying the suras as Mekkiya -revealed in Mecca- and Madaniya -revealed in Al-Madina- does not mean that the entire Verses were revealed there. There are many examples in the holy Quran witnessing this fact…
Third point: Scholars agree unanimously that God’s saying, (They said: O Allah! If this has been the truth sent from Thee, then rain upon us a stone from the heavens or inflicted upon us a painful chastisement,) was revealed just after the battle of Badr. That was many years before the incident of Ghadir.
The answer is that it is inaccurate that Al-Harith’s words were revealed as a Quranic text on that day. Any deep look at the reports that narrated the incident exposes the inexactitude of Ibn Teimiya’s point. It is also graspable that the Quranic texts are not interdicted to be spoken by any. Apart from time of the revelation of that Verse, that atheist did speak these words on the occasion of Ghadir.
Ibn Teimiya, however, aims at adding to the points he cited against those authentic narratives.
Fourth point: The Verse was revealed because of the polytheists’ sayings in Mecca. They were not chastised owing to the presence of the Prophet among them. This is aided by God’s saying, (But Allah was not going to chastise them while you were among them, nor is Allah going to chastise them while yet they ask for forgiveness.)
The answer is that there is no interrelation between ceasing the chastisement directed at the polytheists in Mecca, and ceasing it on that man. The Lord’s deeds vary according to the wisdom required by situations.
It is familiar that there were many individuals inflicted by heavenly chastisement while the Prophet was present…
If the Prophet’s presence was a barrier against the entire sorts of the heavenly chastisement, such a menace and threat should be senseless, and, similarly, the Prophet’s curse would not hit such individuals whom were inflicted by the heavenly chastisement…
Fifth point: Had such an incident been true, it would have been exposed in a Verse similar to those exposed the incident of the Abyssinian attack against the Kaba. Besides, we noticed that the most remarkable exegesists and hadithists neglected such reports that they are related only to such a rejected documentation. Thus, inaccuracy and fabrication of the narrative is proved.
The answer is that such an individual incident that does not create that demanding quake in the society, cannot be measured to the extraordinary incident of the Abyssinian attack. In addition, the incident suffered various sorts of screening and covering since it carried fatal facts about that incident in Ghadir Khum. By the way, the very incident of Ghadir Khum suffered such sorts of concealment and negligence.
Another inaccuracy is derived by Ibn Teimiya as he claims the hadithists’ neglecting the narrative. We have already identified the most remarkable hadithists, scholars, exegesists and historians who affirmed the incident.
Thirdly, Ibn Taimiya does not expose that rejected documentation. The entire reports that narrated the incident are related to Hutheifa Bin Al-Yeman; the celebrated companion of the Prophet, and Sufian Bin Uyeina; one of the master scholars, hadithists and exegesists, and the trustful reporter.
Documentation of the reports are detailedly scrutinized by a great number of master hadithists, exegesists and scholars. They would not accept it unless they found it reliable and delicate. Hence, they refer to it during citing exegesis of Quranic texts.
This is the truth. But Ibn Teimiya rejects the documentation and criticizes the text because it did not befit the notoriety of his ill plot.
Sixth point; From the text, it is attained that Al-Harith was a Muslim, since he admitted five of the Islamic bases. It is necessarily knowable that any sort of the heavenly chastisement was not inflicted upon any Muslim during the prophetic reign.
The answer is that in the same way of proving islamization of Al-Harith, it is proved that he objected against the Prophet and suspected the matter conveyed from the Lord. Hence, he was not chastised while he was Muslim. Likewise, there is a number of Muslims chastised when they violated the sacredness of the Lord’s Apostle, or when they were cursed by him (peace be upon him and his family). One of those is that man who refused carrying the Prophet’s instructions of having food with the right hand, excusing that he lost the ability of using that hand. The Prophet cursed him; therefore, the man could not raise his hand forever. This narrative is mentioned in Muslim’s Sahih.
Seventh point: Al-Harith Bin An-Numan is not known among Sahaba. Ibn Abdil-Berr; in Alistiab, Ibn Menda, Abu Nuweim Alisbahani and Abu Musa do not refer to him in their books that included names of Sahaba. Hence, the man is unknown and, could be, nonexistent.
The answer is that books allocated for counting Sahaba could not cover the all. Each compiler added to the the previous. The most preferable book in this regard in Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani’s Al-Isabetu Fi Tamyizis Sahaba. However, this compiler introduces his book by the following statement: “Despite our exhausting efforts, we could not count the names of tenth of the companions since there were more than one hundred thousand individuals who heard or saw the Prophet.” As a result, this is the reality of such books. It is then unjust and inappropriate to deny the existence of a person just because his name was not mentioned in such books. Moreover, it is quite probable that compilers of such books do not add the name of that man to the list of Sahaba because of his apostasy.
We are to add the following points to Al-Amini’s answers:
First: Such narratives that reported such an incident can never be baseless. It is irrational to believe that the official narrators of the Quraishi caliphate were the originators of such an incident that proved the divine base and mandate of Ali’s leadership that preceded Abu Bakr’s. The incident also proved that the objectors against that divine leadership were punished in the same way suffered by the Abissynian assailants and the atheists.
In due course, it is critical to affirm that such narratives found themselves places in the Sunni reference books through the Shiite. The entire structure of the Sunni reference books of hadith, and the Quraishi caliphate would be collapsed totally if such a concept was proved or asserted. Narratives respecting principals of the Quraishi caliphate, and those respecting such pro-Shiite matters are related to the same narrators. Therefore, Sunni scholars have to admit and authenticate such narratives even if they injure principals of their structures.
Second: Prevalently, matters unanimously admitted by Sunnis and Shias are more acceptable than the others. Naturally, hearts trust the prophetic texts that are registered by the entire Islamic sects, while they suspect those admitted by a sect and rejected by the other. Moreover, the narrative the text of which is injurious to the narrator who tries his best for evading, is more acceptable than those according.
In abstract, the narratives involved are classified under this category. They do injure followers of the Quraishi caliphate, and perplex Nassibites; adorers of Quraish.
The adherents to the Prophet’s progeny use such narrators as evidences on their being the right.
Third: When the other conditions of authenticity of the narrative are exquisite, the variance on the first name of the man, upon whom that heavenly stone was inflicted, becomes inoffensive. Besides, his people and relative “must have spared no efforts for hiding his name that imputed dishonor to them,” As Al-Amini expresses.
Finally, scholars should prefer that the name was Jabir Bin An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith Bin Kilda Al-Abdari, not Al-Harith Bin An-Numan Al-Fihri, since Abu Ubeid, whom is highly esteemed by the entire Sunni scholars for his experience in this field and precedence of his age, registers this name in his Tafsir.
Jabir Bin An-Nadr is a famed Quraishi personality. His father was chief of sons of Abdud-Dar; the bearer of the Quraishis’ pennon during the battle of Badr against Muslims. Thusly, neither Ibn Teimiya nor can Nassibites refute this narrative.
The rest names, such as Al-Harith Al-Fihri, or their relatives to the least extent, are included in the books mentioned Sahaba.

SIXTH QUESTION
WAYS OF NARRATION AND DOCUMENTATION OF THE NARRATIVE

First: Ways of narration and documentation depended by the Sunni reference books of hadith
First way: Abu Ubeid’s narrative recorded in his Gharibul Qur’an.
According to criteria of Sunni hadithists, this narrative is decided as admissible documentation.
Second way: Athalabi’s relation to Sufian Bin Uyeina.
This way have a number of documentations. Most of those remarked by Al-Amini relate the narrative to Athalabi.
In his Ihqaqul Haq; 6/358, Sayyid Al-Marashi mentions a number of those who relate the narrative to Athalabi. He records:
Athalabi, in Tafsir: Sufian Bin Uyeina was asked about the exegesis of God’s saying: (One demanding…) He answered:
You are the first man who asks about this question. My father relates that Jafar Bin Mohammed recounts the following to his fathers (God be pleased to them):
When the Prophet (peace be upon him) was in Ghadir Khum, he summoned people. As they gathered before him, he took Ali from the arm and raised him saying, ‘He whosever master was I, Ali shall be his master.’
After this had been prevailing among people, Al-Harith (or Al-Harth) Bin An-Numan Al-Fihri heard it. He came towards the Prophet. When he reached there, he stopped his pack animal and rode off. He approached the Prophet and said: “O Mohammed! You have conveyed to us the Lord’s mandates of declaring there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is being the Apostle of Allah, and we admitted. Then you ordered us of performing the five prayers, and we admitted. And ordered us of defraying the poor rate, and we admitted. And ordered us of fasting, and we admitted. And ordered us of performing the pilgrimage, and we admitted. All these, we have admitted, were not enough for you till you raised your cousin from the arm and preceded him to us and said: ‘He whosever master was I, Ali should by his master.’ Is this matter originated from your person or is it God’s mandate?”
“By Allah there is no god but Whom I take the oath, this is surely God’s mandate,” asserted the Prophet (peace be upon him).
Al-Harith Bin An-Numan turned his face towards his pack animal saying: “O Allah! If Mohammed’s words have been true, then rain us with a heavenly stone, or inflict a painful chastisement upon us.”
Before he could reach the animal, the Lord rained him with a stone that fell on the head and went out from the anus. He was killed. Consequently, God revealed: (One demanding…
The same narrative is recorded by Al-Hamawini in Feraidus Simtein.
Az-Zernadi records iu in his Nudhumu Duraris Simtein; 93.
Ibnus-Sebbagh Al-Maliki records it in his Al-Fussoulul Muhimma; 24.
Abdurrahman As-Saffuri records it in Nuzhatul Mejalis; 2/209. He also quotes the same narrative from Al-Qurtubi’s Tafsir.
In Al-Arbauna Hadithen, Sayyid Jamaluddin Ataullah Ashirazi records the same narrative with the addition…
Abdullah Ashafii, in Al-Menaqib; 205, relates the same narrative.
Al-Qanduzi, in Yenabiul Mawadda; 247, relates the same narrative.
Al-Amrutseri, in Arjahul Metalib; 568, relates it to Shihabuddin Ad-Dawletabadi…
Abdurrauf Al-Mennawi records the same narrative in Feidul Qadir.
Mohammed Al-Qadiri records it in As-Siratus Sawi.
Al-Halabi records it in Insanul Uyun.
Ahmed Bin Al-Fadl Bin Mohammed Bakthir records it in Wasiletul Amal.
Mohammed Bin Ismail Al-Amir records it in Arrawdatul Nadiya.
Mohammed Bin Yousuf Al-Kenji records it in Kifayetut Talib.
Al-Hasakani’s two ways of relation to Sufian Bin Uyeina:
Shawahidut Tanzil; 2/381:
1030. … Sufian Bin Uyeina: Jafar Bin Mohammed: His father: Ali:
When the Prophet (peace be upon him), in Ghadir Khum, nominated Ali for the coming leadership and said, ‘He whosever master was I, Ali shall be his master,’ An-Numan Bin Al-Harth Al-Fihri came to the Prophet and said: “You have conveyed to us the Lord’s mandates of declaring there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is being the Apostle of Allah, and you ordered us of jihad and pilgrimaging and praying and defraying the poor rate and fasting, and we admitted. All these, we have admitted, were not enough for you till you nominated this boy and said: ‘He whosever master was I, Ali should by his master.’ Is this matter originated from your person or is it God’s mandate?”
“This is surely God’s mandate,” asserted the Prophet.
“I adjure you by the Lord there is no god but Whom, is it Allah’s mandate?” asked the man.
“By the Lord there is no god but Whom I do take the oath, this is Allah’s mandate,” affirmed the Prophet.
An-Numan turned his face and said: “O Allah! If this has been the truth sent from Thee, then rain us with a heavenly stone, or inflict a painful chastisement upon us.”
The Lord threw at him a stone that fell on the head, and he was killed. Consequently, God revealed: One demanding…
1031. Abu Bakr As-Subei… (The same previous narrative.)
Third way: Al-Hasakani’s relation to Jabir Al-Jufi.
Shawahidut Tanzil; 2/382:
1032. Ibrahim… Jabir Al-Jufi… Al-Harith Bin Amr Al-Fihri came to the Prophet… As soon as he arrived that mound, a heavenly gravel cracked his head. Immediately, God revealed: (One demanding demanded the chastisement that must befall -to those who objected against the leadership of Ali-.)
Similar narratives are related to Hutheifa, Sa’d Bin Abi Waqas, Abu Hureira and Ibn Abbas.
Fourth way: Al-Hasakani’s relation to Hutheifa Bin Al-Yeman.
Shawahidut Tanzil; 2/383:
1033. Abul-Hassan… Hutheifa Bin Al-Yeman: When the Prophet said, ‘He whosever master was I, Ali shall be his master,’ An-Numan Bin Al-Munthir Al-Fihri stood erect and said…
Fifth way: Al-Hasakani’s relation to Abu Hureira.
Shawahidut Tanzil; 2/385:
1034. Othman… Abu Hureira: On that day in Ghadir Khum, the Prophet (peace be upon him) took Ali Bin Abi Talib from the arm and said, ‘He whosever master was I, Ali shall be his master.’ A Bedouin stood erect and said… A flame from the heavens burnt that man. Hence, God revealed: (One demanding…
Al-Hasakani refers to two more ways of narration, related to Sa’d Bin Abi Waqas and Ibn Abbas. He does not refer to their documentation. Probably, they are the same ways registered in Furat Al-Kufi’s Tafsir.
Second: Ways of narration and documentation depended by the Shiite reference books of hadith and related to Sufian Bin Uyeina.
Ways of narration and documentation depended by Furat Al-Kufi and related to Sufian Bin Uyeina.
Furat Al-Kufi’s Tafsir; 505:
… I asked Sufian Bin Uyeina about the event for which God’s saying, (One demanding…,) was revealed. Sufian replied: O my brother’s son! You are the first one who asks this question. I have asked Jafar Bin Mohammed (peace be upon them) the same question. He answered: … Ibn Abbas recounted: On that day in Ghadir Khum, the Prophet sermonized. He summoned Ali Bin Abi Talib (peace be upon him). He took him from the arm and raised as elevated as possible. He then declared, ‘Have I conveyed the message to you? Have I advised you?’ ‘Yes, you have indeed,’ affirmed people.
After that, he said, ‘He whosever master was I, Ali shall be his master. O Allah! Accede to whomever accedes to him, and oppose whomever opposes him, and give victory to whomever supports him, and disappoint whomever disappoints him.’
As this matter was prevalent among people, Al-Harith Bin An-Numan Al-Fihri rode on his pack animal and approached the Prophet who was in Mecca. The Prophet answered the greetings. Al-Harith spoke, ‘O Mohammed! You have solicited us to say that there is no god but Allah, and we did. Then you solicited us to say that you are being the Apostle of Allah, and we did in spite of what we had in our hiddens. Then you asked us to perform the prayers, and we did. They you asked us to fast, and we deprived ourselves of water during daylight and drove our bodies to fatigue. Then you asked us to pilgrimage, and we did. Then you instructed that we should pay five dirhams from each two hundred ones annually, and we did. Now, you have introduced your cousin and nominated him as the coming leader and said: He whosever master was I, Ali shall be his master. O Allah! Accede to whomever accedes to him, and oppose whomever opposes him, and give victory to whomever supports him, and disappoint whomever disappoints him.
Is this yours or is it God’s mandate?’ ‘It is surely God’s mandate,’ answered the Prophet. The same question was repeated twice, and the same answer was. The man was very irate as he stood up and said, ‘O Allah! If Mohammed’s words have been the truth, then rain us with a heavenly stone that shall be a castigation for the precedents and a marvel for the coming generations. And if his words have been untrue, then inflict Thy castigation upon him.’
As soon as he went away, the Lord threw him with a heavenly stone that hit the head and went out of the anus. The man died. Hence, God revealed: (One demanding…
Ways of narration and documentation depended by Mohammed Bin Al-Abbas and related to Sufian Bin Uyeina.
Tawilul Ayat; 2/722:
Mohammed Bin Al-Abbas…
Ways of narration and documentation depended by Asharif Al-Murteda and related to Sufian Bin Uyeina.
Madinetul Maajiz; 1/407:
Sayyid Al-Murteda’s Uyunul Mujizat: Abu Abdillah…
Ways of narration and documentation depended by Muntajabuddin Ar-Razi and related to Sufian Bin Uyeina.
Al-Arbauna Hadithen; 82:
Abul-Ala…
Ways of narration and documentation depended by At-Tebirsi and related to Sufian Bin Uyeina.
Tafsirul Mizan; 6/58:
Majmaul Bayan: Abul Hamd…
Third: The other ways of narration and documentation depended by the Shiite reference books of hadith.
Ways of narration and documentation depended by Mohammed Bin Yaqub Al-Kuleini.
Al-Kafi; 1/422:
Abu Abdillah recited: (One demanding, demanded the chastisement which must befall. The unbelievers -in Ali’s leadership- there is none to avert it.)
He added: “By God, Gabriel revealed it to Mohammed (peace be upon him and his family) in this form.”
Imam As-Sadiq means that Gabriel revealed the interpretation of the Verse, too. This is similar to Ibn Masud’s saying, “In the reign of the Prophet, we used to recited: (O Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you -concerning Ali- from your Lord…)
It is also recorded that Ibn Abbas used to recite: (And Allah sufficed the believers in fighting -by Ali-.)
These additions are only the revealed interpretation or exegeses of the Verses. It is quite knowable that adding any single letter to the Quranic texts is illicit.
Al-Kafi; 1/422:
…When Amirul Muminin approached, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) addressed at him: “There is a common point between Jesus and you. I anticipate that peoples of my nation will adopt the same statements the Christians ascribed to Jesus, lest I am to describe you so elevatedly that bless shall be sought from the soil on which your feet walk.”
This saying enraged two Bedouins, Al-Mughira Bin Shuba and a number of Quraishis. They said: “He chose none other than Jesus to liken to his cousin.”
In due course, God revealed: (And when a description of the son of Mariam is given, lo! Your people raise a clamor thereat. And they say: Are our gods better, or is he? They do not set it forth to you save by way of disputation; nay, they are a contentious people. He was naught but a servant on whom We bestowed favor, and We made him an example for the children of Israel. And if We please, We could make among you -sons of Hashim- angels to be successors in the land.)
Al-Harith Bin Amr Al-Fihri was so incensed when he said: “O Allah! If the Hashemites’ holding this position successively like Caesars, has been the truth sent from Thee, then rain us with a heavenly stone or inflict a painful chastisement upon us…
“O Mohammed!” said Al-Harith, “You should give the Quraishis some of what you are having. The Hashemites seized the entire favors of the Arabs and the non-Arabs…
Ways of narration and documentation depended by Furat Bin Ibrahim Al-Kufi.
Furat Al-Kufi’s Tafsir; 503:
1. Al-Hussein… Abu Hureira: On that day in Ghadir Khum, the Prophet… A Bedouin stood erect and said… A flame from the heavens burnt that man. Hence, God revealed: (One demanding…
2. Jafar… Ibn Abbas: Amr Bin Al-Harith Al-Fihri came to the Prophet and addressed at him, “You have instructed us of performing the prayers and defraying the poor rate, were these precepts originated by your Lord or you?” “The precepts are my Lord’s mandate, my mission is only conveyance,” said the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Then, Amr added, “You have instructed us to cherish Ali Bin Abi Talib. You maintained that his standing to you is as same as Aaron’s to Moses, and that his adherents -Shias- shall be riding branded white she-camels in the yard on the Resurrection Day, and that he shall approach Kawthar -the Divine Pool- to drink and serve his people. Is this a heavenly foretelling or is it your own contrivance?”
‘It is surely the Lord’s telling, that I conveyed. Allah created him and me as illumination below the Divine Throne,” affirmed the Prophet.
“Now, it is certain for me that you are a liar!” said Amr, “You are the offspring of Adam, are you not?”
“Yes, we are,” explained the Prophet, “Twelve thousand years before the creation of Adam, the Lord created me as an illumination below the Divine Throne. When the Lord created Adam, He threw that illumination in his flank. It moved in men’s flanks till it divided into two parts in the flanks of Abdullah Bin Abdil-Muttelib and Abu Talib. Hence, my Lord created us from that illumination. But there shall be no prophet after me.”
Twelve men followed Amr who stood up enraged and said, “O Allah! If Mohammed has been saying the truth, then cast fire fragments on Amr and his company.”
Immediately, Amr and his company were thrown with fire fragments, and God revealed: (One demanding…
4. Abu Ahmed… Sa’d Bin Abi Waqas: One Friday, the Prophet turned his shining face to us and said after he praised and thanked the Lord:
“On the Resurrection day, I shall be coming out and Ali shall be raising the banner of Hamd before me. The flag shall be of two parts; one sarcenet, and one brocaded.”
A Najdi Bedouin from sons of Jafar Bin Kelab Bin Rabia stood up and addressed at the Prophet, “I have been sent for asking you a question. What do you say about Ali Bin Abi Talib. People have been engaged in discrepancies respecting him.”
The Prophet smiled and said, “O Bedouin! Why should people be engaged in discrepancy for Ali? Ali’s standing to me is as same as my head to my body, and the button to the shirt.”
The Bedouin was so irate when he said, “O Mohammed! I am stronger than Ali. How can he raise the banner of Hamd?”
The Prophet answered, “Slow down, Bedouin! On the Resurrection Day, Ali shall be given many characteristics. He shall be given Joseph’s beauty, and John’s temperance, and Job’s sufferance, and Adam’s altitude, and Gabriel’s power. The entire creatures shall be under that banner of Hamd he shall raise. The imams and the reciters of Quran and the declaratory call to prayers, whom are not decayed in their graves, shall be encircling him.”
Owing to his rage, the Bedouin said, “O Allah! If Mohammed’s words were the truth, then inflict a stone upon me.”
God revealed: (One demanding…
Ways of narration and documentation depended by Mohammed Bin Al-Abbas.
Tawilul Ayat; 2/722:
… Abu Basir: Abu Abdillah (peace be upon him) recited: One demanding, demanded the chastisement which must befall. The unbelievers -in Ali’s leadership- there is none to avert it.
Then he commented, “In Fatima’s Mus’haf, it is written in this very way.”
…Abu Basir: Abu Abdillah…
Then he commented, “Gabriel conveyed these very words to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family).”
We have already alluded that the statement ‘in Ali’s leadership’ is only an exegesis or an interpretation. Such statements were added to the Quranic Verses as explanations. For instance, It is recorded that Ibn Abbas used to recite and record: And Allah sufficed the believers in fighting -by Ali-.
Ways of narration and documentation recorded in Jamiul Akhbar.
Biharul Anwar; 33/165:
42. … Zurara: I heard Imam As-Sadiq recount: When the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) left Mecca after performing the Farewell Pilgrimage, -according to another narration: he was accompanied by twelve thousand Yemenis and five thousand from the inhabitants of Al Madina- Gabriel descended and told: “O God’s messenger! Allah; the Exalted, greets you. O Prophet! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord…
“O Gabriel!” answered the Prophet, “People have just converted into Islam. I am afraid they will confuse and disobey…
The Prophet said, “O Gabriel! I am afraid my companions will dissent me.”
On the third day, the Prophet was in a place called Ghadir Khum when Gabriel descended carrying God’s saying: O Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people.
As soon as the Prophet received this saying, he gave the orders of settling in that place, and declared that he would not leave it before he would convey the Lord’s message.
People carried the Prophet’s orders of establishing a pulpit on which he ascended and took Ali (peace be upon him) with him. He sermonized so eloquently. He said: “O people! I am preceded to your souls, aren’t I?” “Yes…
Three days later, the Prophet was sitting when a man from sons of Makhzum, named Omar Bin Utba, (or Harith Bin An-Numan Al-Fihri) came and said: “O Mohammed! I am to ask you three questions.” “You are to ask as you like,” answered the Prophet.
“Tell me about the creed that there is no god but Allah, and that Mohammed is being the messenger of Allah; is it your or is it your Lord’s mandate?”
“It has been revealed to me from Allah, and the emissary has been Gabriel, and the declarant is I. I declare only after I receive my Lord’s instruction,” replied the Prophet.
“Tell me then about the prayer, the poor rate, the pilgrimage and the jihad; are they yours or your Lord’s mandate?” reasked the man, and the Prophet repeated the same reply.
“Tell me about this man,” said the man as he indicated to Ali Bin Abi Talib (peace be upon him), “and tell me about your saying, ‘He whosever master was I, Ali shall be his master.’ Is it yours or your Lord’s mandate?”
The Prophet repeated the same reply.
The man turned his head upwards and said: “O Allah! If Mohammed has been telling the truth, then throw fire fragments upon me.” (According to another narration, the man said: “O Allah! If this has been the truth sent from Thee, then rain us with a heavenly stone.”)
The man walked few steps when a gloomy cloud covered him. He was instantaneously burnt by its thunderbolt.
Soon after that, Gabriel descended with God’s saying: (One demanding…
“You have seen, have you not?” said the Prophet to his companions. “Yes, we have,” answered they. “And you have heard, have you not?” said he. “Yes, we have,” answered they.
He then commented: “Pleasure be the outcome of those who accede to him, and woe is those who oppose. On the Resurrection Day, Ali and his adherents -Shias- shall be wedded to the Paradise on camels from gardens of the Paradise. They shall be young, crowned and black-eyed. They shall feel no fear and shall not be grieved. They shall be supported by the great gratification of Allah. That is surely the principal triumph. They shall reside the yard of sacredness in the vicinity of the Lord of the worlds. Therein shall be what their souls yearn and their eyes delight, and they shall abide therein eternally. Angels shall say to them: peace be upon you for your endurance. Excellent is the reward of the abode.”
Ways of narration and documentation recorded in Al-Bahrani’s Madinetul Maajiz.
Allama Al-Hilli’s Al-Keshkul: Mohammed Bin Ahmed Bin Abdirrahman Al-Bawardi: …An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith greeted the Prophet and said: “O God’s messenger! You are the master of Adam’s offspring, and your brother is the master of the Arabs, and Fatima; your daughter, is the mistress of women of this world, and Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein; your sons, are the masters of the young in the Paradise, and your uncle is the master of the martyrs, and your cousin is the two-winged who shall use his wings in the Paradise, and your uncle is the protector between your eyes, and Sheiba has the custody of the Sacred House of God; what then has been kept for the Quraishis and the Arabs? In the beginning of Islam, you have informed that if we believe in your sayings, we shall enjoy the same rights you enjoy and we shall submit to the same obligations imposed upon you.”
For a considerable while, the Prophet nodded his head down. He then raised the head and said: “It was not I who did this to them. It was surely Allah who did. What is my sin then?”
An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith went away saying: “O Allah! If this has been the truth sent from Thee, then rain us with a heavenly stone or inflict a painful chastisement upon us.”
Immediately, God revealed: (And they say: If this has been the truth sent from Thee, then rain us with a heavenly stone or inflict a painful chastisement upon us.”
The Prophet summoned An-Nadr and recited this Verse before him… The man sought the Prophet’s permitting him to leave Al-Madina since he could no longer live there. The Prophet advised him and told that God would grant him well if he would become self-possessed and use clemency…
The Prophet permitted him. The man went out repeating his same statement. As soon as he left the city, a bird catching a stone came straightly above him and cast that stone. An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith and his pack animal were killed. Hence, God revealed: (One demanding…
Narration in Ibn Sahrashub’s Al-Menaqib:
Biharul Anwar; 31/320:
Abu Basir: Imad As-Sadiq (peace be upon him): The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) addressed at Ali: “I anticipate peoples of my nation will adopt the same statements the Christians ascribed to Jesus, lest I am to describe you so elevatedly that bless shall be sought from the soil on which your feet walk.”
This saying enraged Al-Harith Bin Amr Al-Fihri who said: “He chose none other than Jesus to liken to his cousin. He is about to name him as the next prophet. By God, the gods we worshipped were better than him.”
In due course, God revealed: (And when a description of the sons of Mariam…children of Israel.)
The Prophet advised Al-Harith to cease his enmity to Ali Bin Abi Talib.
He addressed at the Prophet: “You are God’s messenger, and Ali is your successor, and Fatima; your daughter is the mistress of women of this world, and Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein; your sons, are the masters of the young in the Paradise, and Hamza; your uncle is the master of the martyrs, and Jafar; your cousin is the two-winged who shall use his wings in the Paradise with the angels, and Al-Abbas; your uncle, is the waterer; what then has been kept for the Quraishis; your brothers?
“Woe is you, Harith!” said the Prophet, “It was not I who did so to sons of Abdul-Muttelib. It was surely Allah who did.”
Al-Harith said: “O Allah! If this has been the truth sent from Thee, then rain us with a heavenly stone or inflict a painful chastisement upon us.”
Hence, God revealed: (Allah was not to chastise them while you are among them.)
The Prophet summoned Al-Harith and asked him either to show repentance or to leave. He left. In his way, a bird cast a pebble on his head. He was killed. In due course, God revealed: (One demanding, demanded the chastisement which must befall. The unbelievers -In Ali’s leadership- there is not to avert it.)
Narration of Ali Bin Ibrahim Al-Qummi.
Al-Qummi’s Tafsir; 2/385:
As he explained sura of Maarij, Imam Abul-Hassan (peace be upon him) says:
A man asked about the Prophet’s Successors, and the estimation of Qadr night. The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) answered: “You are asking about a befalling chastisement. It will be followed by disbelief. None shall cease that chastisement when it falls.”
Further more, there are too many ways of narration and documentation to be wholly mentioned. For students, refer to An-Numan Al-Maghribi’s Sharhul Akhbar, Al-Kerajeki’s Kenzul Haqaiq, Shathan Bin Gibril’s Al-Fedail, Al-Qummi’s book of Tafsir… etc.

THE RESULT: THE NARRATIVE IS AUTHENTIC, AND THE DIVINE CHASTISEMENT WAS REPEATED
Two results are attained through looking deep in the narrative pertaining to the immediate divine chastisement inflicted upon those who objected against the leadership of Ali (peace be upon him).
First, origin of the narrative is quite authentic according to criteria of hadithists. It is impossible for the narrow-minded and the suspicious who allow themselves to say that Shias forged such narratives and intrigued them in their reference books; it is impossible to accuse Shias of intriguing such narratives in the numerous Sunni reference books of hadith that recorded them. Besides, many Sunni master scholars report and adopt such narratives.
A fanatical may object that those Sunni master scholars relate these narratives to the imams of the Prophet’s progeny (peace be upon them).
We cite, first, that, for Sunnis, the Prophet’s progeny enjoy the very standing enjoyed by the master scholars. For instance, a good number of Sunni master scholars, such as Abu Ubeid, Az-Zuhri, Malik, Ahmed et al, relate directly or indirectly to Imam Al-Baqir and Imam As-Sadiq (peace be upon them).
As a matter of fact, Sunnis’ sensitivity against the Prophet’s progeny’s narratives are only shown when Shias are the reporters. While, the Prophet’s progeny’s narratives recorded by Sunni scholars are quite acceptable and recorded in their reference books of hadith.
Secondly, ways of narrating the reports involved are not restricted to the Prophet’s progeny. We have already introduced ways of narration depended by Al-Hasakani who relates them to Hutheifa, Abu Huraira and many others.
The Second result is that it is impracticable to imply that the entire incidents recorded in the previous narratives were leading to the same. It is quite understandable that there must have been a number of similar incidents. There is a variety in names, sorts of chastisement, place, time and events.
As an explanation, it is cited that narratives of Abu Ubeid and Athalabi announce that the incident befell in or in the vicinity of Al-Madina, and the chastisement was a baked stone. Abu Huraira’s narratives cites that the objection occurred in the very Ghadir Khum immediately after the Prophet’s sermon, and the chastisement was a blaze sent from the heavens. Other narratives affirm that the chastisement was a thunderbolt.
Names are also variant. Some of these names only could be a clerical error.

SEVENTH QUESTION
CLAN OF THE BEFALLING CHASTISEMENT

There is only a number of questions and matters appertained to the topic involved. One of these questions is the number, names and identities of the objectors after the Ghadir incident, and the sort of chastisement inflicted upon them. Another question is the influence of the Prophet’s declaring his progeny’s leadership and imamate, on Muslims in general, and the Quraishis in particular. Many matters can be added to this question. It is the general ambiance that prevailed during the last two months of the Prophet’s lifetime, including the Verses and incidents revealed and befallen during that period. Among the most remarkable incidents were Ansar’s offering to allocate one third of their riches for covering disbursement of the Prophet and his family. On that occasion, God revealed: (Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives,) and the Quraishis’ sensitivity attained its acme due to so. Another incident was the Prophet’s deciding to enlist the entire Quraishi celebrities in the army commanded by Usama Bin Zaid; the young African Muslim. By this step, the Prophet aimed at attracting people’s attentions towards the external front, and empty Al-Madina from the objectors against his family’s leadership, so that none would stay there at his decease except Ali and Ansar.
A third question is the two activities of assassinating the Prophet after the declaration in Ghadir, and the story of coercing the Prophet on having that (medicine) while he was fainted in his final disease.
A fourth question is the third accursed document. According to Shiite reference books of hadith, the objectors against Ali’s leadership wrote down that document of contracting against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) in Al-Madina.
Merits of Ghadir day -the eighteenth of Dhu’l-Hijja- and narratives respecting the recommendation of fasting and praising God and showing delight on that day, is a topic useful to be introduced detailedly.
As a matter of fact, the whole questions are useful topics. Nevertheless, we’d better abridge and be content with the earliest which is Quraishi sons of Abdud-Dar. Both sects of Islam testify that God’s saying: (One demanding…,) was inflicted upon An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith; chief of sons of Abdud-Dar, and Jabir; the son.
We also hint at introducing a mature picture for the immense envy carried by the Quraishis against the Prophet and his immaculate progeny.

THE OLD ENVY AND THE ‘BLOOD LICK’
Societies and provinces of the Arab Peninsula were ruled by tribes. They had no central government. Struggles, combats and tribal alliances were common. Tribes of Quraish were not excluded.
Alliance of ‘Fudoul’ was the most famed in history. It was established by Abdul-Muttelib; the Prophet’s grandfather. It was also called alliance of ‘Muteyyibin -odorizers-’ because the parties swore their alliance by immersing their hands in a vessel of odor made by daughter of Abdul-Muttelib.
The most important terms of that alliance was protecting the Holy Kaba, and prohibiting sorts of injustice, and supporting the wronged till they recover their rights. The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) was twenty years old when he partook in that alliance. Moreover, some narratives, such as that recorded in Ahmed’s Al-Musned; 1/190, and decided as authentic by Al-Hakim, in Al-Mustedrak; 2/220, assert that he passed it after the divine mission.
The Prophet said: “I was boy when I witnessed the alliance of ‘Muteyyibin’ with my uncles. I prefer it to having the best kinds of camels.”
As a matter of fact, this alliance was an answer for another alliance called forth by sons of Abdud-Dar. Some Quraishi tribes responded and partook in that alliance which was called the ‘blood lick’, since the parties swore their alliance by licking the blood of a cow slaughtered on that occasion.
Different opinions were said about reason and time of these alliances. Some identified the building of Kaba and the tribes’ engagement in discrepancies for nominating the one whose individuals would win the honor of establishing the Black Stone in its place. Others recounted that it was due to the complaining of a seller whom was oppressed by a Quraishi person.
The most acceptable narration in this regard is that recorded by Al-Yaqubi who identified the envy carried by sons of Abdud-Dar against Abdul-Muttelib as the reason beyond conclusion of such alliances.
Al-Yaqubi’s Tarikh; 1/248:
As the Quraishis noticed that Abdul-Muttelib had won the whole pride, they demanded with an alliance through which they would attain loftiness. Sons of Abdud-Dar were the precedent to this demand. They went to sons of Sahm and…
Sons of Abdu Menaf, Asad, Zuhra, Teim and Al-Harith Bin Fihr odorized; therefore, they were named ‘Muteyibin -the odorizers-’.
When sons of Sahm received so, they slaughtered a cow and declared that parties would be only those who dip their hands and lick from blood of that cow…
Al-Yaqubi’s Tarikh; 2/17:
The Prophet was about twenty years old when he attended the alliance of ‘Fudoul’. After his divine mission, he said: “In house of Abdullah Bin Jadan I attended an alliance. I would surely prefer it to the best sorts of camels. I will answer if I am called forth to it.”
The Quraishis concluded many alliances of protection and defense. Al-Muteyyibun -the odorizers- allied that they would never give up the Holy Kaba. Atika Bint Abdil-Muttelib made a bowl of odor in which they dipped their hands. They were sons of Abdu Menaf, Asad, Zuhra, Teim and Al-Harith Bin Fihr…
The Quraishi clans covenanted that a stranger or the like should never be wronged, and each should recover his right. They held the conference of alliance in house of Abdullah Bin Jadan At-Teimi. They were sons of Hashim, Asad, Zuhra, Teim and Al-Harith Bin Fihr…
Ibn Husham’s As-Sira; 1/85:
Sons of Asad Bin Abdul-Uzza Bin Qusay, Zuhra Bin Kelab, Teim Bin Murra Bin Kab and Al-Harith Bin Fihr Bin Malik Bin An-Nadr were in the line of sons of Abdu Menaf. On the other line stood sons of Makhzum Bin Yaqada Bin Murra, Sahm Bin Amr Bin Husseis Bin Kab, Jamh Bin Amr Bin Husseis Bin Kab and Edi Bin Kab. They backed sons of Abdud-Dar.
As well as many others, these texts prove that owing to envying sons of Abdul-Muttelib, sons of Abdud-Dar concluded such alliance. As sons of Abdul-Muttelib and their allies went on concluding the alliance of Muteyyibin, sons of Abdud-Dar and their allies concluded the alliance of ‘blood lick’.
Sons of Abdul-Muttelib and their allies agreed upon protecting the holy Kaba and supporting the wronged. On the other hand, sons of Abdud-Dar agreed upon confronting the Muteyyibin.
SONS OF ABDUD-DAR, CARRIERS OF THE QURAISHIS’ PENNON
Historians assert that sons of Abdud-Dar had in heritage Darun-Nidwa, which was the center of the Quraishis’ congress where they used to discuss the most important issued and conclude decisions. They also had in heritage the Quraishis’ pennon. They were carriers of that pennon during battles.
Al-Belathiri’s Fetihul Buldan; 60:
Darun-Nidwa was in the hands of sons of Abdud-Dar Bin Qusay till Ikrima Bin Amir Bin Hashim Bin Abd Menaf Bin Abdud-Dar Bin Qusay sold it to Muawiya Bin Abi Sufian who made it a governmental position.
Ali (peace be upon him) killed more than ten individuals from the knights of sons of Abdud-Dar who raised the Quraishis’ pennon in the face of God’s messenger. It is also related that some of those knights were killed by Hamza Bin Abdil-Muttelib.
Describing the fervor Abu Sufian and his wife aroused in sons of Abdud-Dar just before the war of Uhud, Ibn Husham, in 3/587, records:
Driving carriers of the pennon to fighting, Abu Sufian addressed at them: “O sons of Abdud-Dar! You have carried our pennon during the battle of Badr, and we suffered what we had suffered. Regularly, people are attacked from the side of their pennons. If this side is defeated, then those people will certainly be beaten. You either give our pennon its due, otherwise leave it to us and we will give its due.”
Sons of Abdud-Dar became so irate that they threatened Abu Sufian and were about to attack him. “What! Should we give our pennon up?” said they, “Tomorrow, when we meet, you shall see our activities.”
As a matter of fact, Abu Sufian wanted nothing more than this.
When the two parties were about to meet, Hind Bint Utba; Abu Sufian’s wife, led her crew who played the drums behind the warriors for driving them to fighting. Hind praised sons of Abdud-Dar.
Ibn Husham’s As-Sira; 3/655:
… Al-Hejjaj Bin Elat As-Salami composed a number of poetic verses in which he applauded Abul-Hassan Amirul Muminin Ali Bin Abi Talib, for his killing Talha Bin Abi Talha Bin Abdud-Uzza Bin Othman Bin Abdud-Dar; carrier of the Quraishis’ pennon during the battle of Uhud.
Nine individuals from sons of Abdud-Dar had to carry the Quraishis’ pennon during that battle. Some mention a bigger number. They also aimed at assaulting the Prophet after he was left alone when Muslims retreated and ascended the mountain. The Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) and Ali (peace be upon him) stood in the face of the Quraishis’ attacks that lasted till afternoon.
The Prophet fought from his position, while Ali attacked their first lines, and penetrated in the midst of their army that he reached carrier of the pennon to chop his head off. Only then, the attack was stopped to begin anew.
Another one from sons of Abdud-Dar took the pennon, and the army attacked the Prophet. Ali met them while he was on his feet and they were horsemen. This custom went on till Ali killed tens of their horsemen and about nine individuals from sons of Abdud-Dar; carriers of the Quraishis’ pennon. When they had to withdraw, they shouted falsely: “Mohammed is killed.”
In fact, the Prophet was hit by few injuries, and Ali had more than seventy injuries some of which were somewhat grave. It is related that these injuries were cured when the Prophet passed his saliva over them.

SONS OF ABDUD-DAR GIVE A LESSON IN DEFENSE
Historians record that those courageous sons of Abdud-Dar taught the Quraishis a peculiar lesson in self-defense against the Hashemites. They profited by the elevation and the noble ethics of the Hashemites.
Ibn Kutheir’s As-Sira; 3/39:
Ibn Husham: In the gravest moments of the battle of Uhud, the Prophet sat under Ansar’s pennon and commanded Ali of marching with the pennon. Ali marched while he was challenging the other party. The carrier of the Quraishis’ pennon; Talha Bin Abi Talha challenged. As the two stopped between the two armies, Ali stroke him so heavily that he fell to the ground. Suddenly, Ali left him and came back. “Why did you not kill him?” some asked Ali. “He showed me his anus! I pitied him for the relation between us. I also realized that God would kill him,” Ali answered.
On the battle of Siffine, Bisr Bin Artaa used the same practice when Ali (God be pleased to him) was about to kill him. Hence, Ali left him.
The anus of Amr Bin Al-As was also shown during the battle of Siffine when Ali knocked him down and was about to kill him. Ali left him. A poet recorded this practice in a number of poetic verses.
AN-NADR BIN AL-HARITH; CHIEF OF SONS OF ABDUD-DAR
Ibn Husham’s; 1/195:
An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith was one of the Satanic enemies who used to harm the Prophet (peace be upon him). In Hira -in Iraq-, he received tales of the Persian kings. Whenever the Prophet (peace be upon him) led a session in which he reminded people of their Lord and warned against the divine punishment suffered by the foregoing nations, An-Nadr came to the same place and recounted tales of the Persian kings. He was summoning people to himself claiming having harangues better than those said by the Prophet.
(Ibn Husham) It was he who pronounced that he would reveal what God revealed.
(Ibn Isaaq) Ibn Abbas identified eight Verses revealed for the sayings of An-Nadr. Every Verse that referred to atheists’ likening the Quran to the bygone myths, was a refutation of An-Nadr’s false claims.
Ibn Husham, in As-Sira; 1/239, refers to An-Nadr’s accusing the Prophet’s sayings of being bygone myths.
As-Suyouti’s Ad-Durrul Manthour; 3/181:
…God’s saying, (And when they said: O Allah! If this has been the truth sent from Thee, then rain upon us a stone from the heavens or inflicted upon us a painful chastisement,) copied the words of An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith. Other Verses, that accounted more than ten as Atta asserted, were revealed for showing An-Nadr’s words. One of them was God’s saying, (One demanding…
The same thing is related to Abd Bin Humeid on page 297 of part 5 of the same reference book.
In Tafsirul Jalalein; 540, As-Suyouti records:
An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith received the Persian tales from the books he merchandised in Hira. He was telling them to people of Mecca for precluding them from listening to the Quran.
We have already asserted that the Shiite reference books of hadith, as well as a good many Sunni books, identify Jabir Bin An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith or Al-Harith Al-Fihri as the one demanded the chastisement which must befall. Depending upon the narratives related to Ibn Jubeir and Ibn Abbas, most of Sunni reference books identify An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith as the demander.
Al-Hakim, in Al-Mustedrak; 2/502, relates a narrative identifying An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith as the one demanded the chastisement, to Sa’eed Bin Jubeir. As-Suyouti, in Ad-Durrul Manthour; 6/263, relates it to Ibn Abbas.
Relying upon personal study, historians and hadithists mention Jabir; son of An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith, only in the story of his being killed by a heavenly stone for his atheism and scorning the Prophet’s household (peace be upon them). It is also probable that the man’s news were concealed by those who envied the Prophet’s household. It is understandable through the reference books that the father was highly worse than the son, since he was one of the Pharaonic enemies whom confronted the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). The son might have been exceeding the father in antagonizing the Prophet if he had lived.
AN-NADR; A MEMBER OF THE PHARAONIC CONFERENCE AGAINST THE PROPHET
Ibn Husham’s; 1/191:
…As Islam extended among the Quraishi tribes in spite of the policy of detention and mistreatments, the Quraishi chiefs held a conference… An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith was a member in that conference.
They agreed upon summoning the Prophet for negotiations. When he attended, they said: “O Mohammed! We do not know a man drove dishonor to his people other than you. You have reviled at the forefathers, and slandered the gods, and criticized the beliefs, and disunited our harmony. You have not excluded any ill matter. If you mean to make a fortune through this solicitation, we will amass you from our fortunes and you will be the richest. If you mean to be the master, we will make you our chief. If you mean to gain kingship, we will select you as our king. If it was a matter of spooks influence, we may spend our fortunes for seeking physicians till you will be cured.”
The Prophet answered: “Nothing of what you have mentioned is my interest. I did not convey this matter for your riches, mastery or kingship. It is only that Allah has sent me for you and revealed to me a book, and ordered me of being your foreteller and forewarner. I only conveyed my Lord’s messages and advised you. If you admit, then it is your good in this world and the Hereafter. If you do not, I should only wait for Allah’s deed. He shall be the judge…
Ibn Husham’s; 1/191:
Ibn Abbas: …On that day, the Quraishi celebrities held a meeting. An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith was the representative of sons of Abdud-Dar.*
AN-NADR; THE MESSENGER TO THE JEWS
Ibn Husham’s As-Sira; 1/195:
… An-Nadr Bin Kilda said: “O people of Quraish! You have been affected by a question you lack its answer. When Mohammed was young among you, he was the most true-tongued and the most honest. When you noticed the gray hair on his temple and introduced his affair, you accused him of bewitchment. Nay, by God. He is not sorcerer. We have seen the sorcerers, and their puffing and knots. You then accused him of soothsaying. Nay, by God. He is not soothsayer. We have seen the soothsayers and their augury and melodies. You then accused him of being a poet. Nay, by God. He is not poet. We have seen poets and received the entire sorts of poetry. You then accused him of insanity. Nay, by god. He is not insane. We have seen the insane. He does not have any of their confusion or delusion.
O people of Quraish! Find yourself a solution. You have been affected by an ominous matter.”
They decided to send Aqaba Bin Abi Muit with An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith to the rabins** …
THE REGISTRAR OF THE FIRST ACCURSED DOCUMENT
Ibn Husham’s As-Sira; 1/234:
The Quraishi chiefs agreed upon signing on a document in which they recorded their decisions of precluding to marry or take in marriage any of the Hashemites’ individuals, and depriving them of merchandising. This document was written down in a form of covenant and pledge. It was hanged inside the holy Kaba as ascertainment. Its recorded was Mansur Bin Ikrima…
(Ibn Husham) It is said that the recorder was An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith…
Ibn Wadih Al-Yaqubi’s Tarikh; 2/31:
As Abu Talib was informed of the Quraishis’ unanimous intendment to kill the Prophet, he declared his defending him through poetic verses. He said:
By God, they shall never reach you with their groups
Till I am to be buried under soil
You called me, and you claimed* advising
You are being true, as you’ve been the honest
You have offered a belief I do realize
It is being the best religion among people’s.
When people of Quraish conceived that they would not have the ability of assassinating the Prophet, and Abu Talib would never give him up, they recorded that unjust document in which they decided not to merchandise or marry or deal with any of the Hashemites, till they give Mohammed in so that the Quraishis would kill him. Eighty seals were affixed on that document. Mansur Bin Ikrima’s hand was paralyzed. He was the writer of that document.
People of Quraish detained the Prophet, the Hashemites and sons of Abdul-Muttelib in Col of Abu Talib. That was six years after the Prophet’s Mission.
Three years passed, and the Prophet, Abu Talib and Khadija spent all their possessions. They had to suffer harsh poverty and destitution.
Gabriel descended to the Prophet and informed that termites had torn that document entirely except the pieces on which God’s name was affixed.
The Prophet conveyed this news to Abu Talib who, immediately, led the whole group to the Kaba. He was sitting there when people of Quraish encircled him. “Well, Abu Talib,” said they, “Is it the proper time for you to recall the covenant and stop your obstinacy in defending your nephew?”
“O my people,” shouted Abu Talib, “Should you fetch your document so that we may find a solution or an element that reunite our relations.” They responded and brought it. “It is your very covenanted document, is it not?” asked Abu Talib. “Yes, it is,” affirmed they. “Have you proceeded any changes in it?” asked Abu Talib. “No, we did not,” asserted they.
“Well,” said Abu Talib, “Mohammed has conveyed to me that his Lord had sent a termite that tore the entire document except the place where God’s name was affixed. What should you promise if this is being true?” “We will stop it,” declared they. “I will give him up so that you may kill him if he has been lying,” suggested Abu Talib. “This is quite fair,” agreed them.
When the document was opened, it was found that termite had torn it totally except the place on which God’s name was affixed. “This is nothing but witchery,” shouted the Quraishis, “We have never been more serious in belying him than this current hour.”
On that day, a great number of people islamized, and the Hashemites and sons of Abdul-Muttelib went out of that place of detention forever.
AN-NADR; SERVED FOOD IN BADR
Previously in the Fifth Discussion, we have provided that An-Nadr was one of those who served food to the army of Quraish during the battle of Badr. The Prophet reckoned him with the most effective men of Mecca; the Quraishis’ capital.*
DEMISE OF THE FIRST PHARAONIC DEMANDER
Ibn Husham’s As-Sira; 2/206-7:
The polytheist prisoners were with the Prophet’s caravan in their way to Al-Madina. Ali Bin Abi Talib carried the Prophet’s orders of killing An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith. That was near As-Safra.**
Mujamul Buldan; 1/94:
Thu Utheil is a place near Al-Madina where An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith was killed by the Prophet just after the battle of Badr.
Quteila; daughter of An-Nadr, composed a poem in which she eulogized her father and applauded the Prophet.
As he listened to her poetry, the Prophet (peace be upon him) pitied her. He said: “Had I already heard her poetry, I would have pardoned her father for her.”
It is most abiding that the Prophet hated killing more than anyone else. He killed only in cases of inescapable necessity. It is enough to say that the entire victims of his battles and the doctrinal provisions were less than seven hundred individuals. Hence, the Prophet’s movement was the greatest in results and the less in casualties.
An-Nadr, as well as his corollary Aqaba Bin Muit Al-Umawi who possessed a pub and an adultery house in Mecca, was nothing but a germ of evil and corruption; therefore, he was killed by the Prophet.
Providing that the narration of An-Nadr’s daughter is authentic, it means only that the Lord would permit the Prophet to pardon that man for his daughter since she composed a poetry full with principals and imploring.
AN-NUDEIR; AN-NADR’S BROTHER AND SUCCESSOR
Reference books of history assert that others from sons of Abdud-Dar received the Quraishis’ pennon after An-Nadr had been killed. These books have no signal that An-Nudeir was warrior and horseman like his brother. Although he was not that courageous, it seems that An-Nudeir succeeded his brother in carrying the Quraishis’ pennon and being chief of sons of Abdud-Dar. The pro-Quraish narrators, as well as the other historians, describe him as a politician who inclined to peace. They also reckon him with the Quraishi chiefs listed under the class of ‘the inclined hears’. The Prophet endowed the individuals of that class one hundred camels each from the spoils of the battle of Hunein.
At-Tabari, in Tarikh; 2/358, narrate that the Prophet gave An-Nudeir Bin Al-Harith one hundred camels, when he distributed the spoils of the battle of Hunein. The other Quraishi chiefs, such as Abu Sufian and Muawiya, were given the same.*
In the fifth discussion, we have referred to An-Nudeir and mentioned that he had a hand with the Quraishi chiefs who plotted for assassinating the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) during the battle of Hunein. Some scholars confused An-Nudeir with his brother.
Ar-Razi’s Al-Jarhu Wet Tadid; 8/472:
An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith Bin Kilda is one of those who islamized after conquest of Mecca. He is also called An-Nudeir. This is more accurate. An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith was his atheist brother who was killed…
FOR THE PRO-QURAISH NARRATORS;
AN-NADR WAS MUSLIM, IMMIGRATOR AND MARTYR
As usual, the Pro-Quraish narrators made that Annudeir -or Alharith- that Islamic personality who immigrated and was martyred during the battle of Yarmuk. It seems that the entire Quraishi people whom were killed by the plague of Amwas; such as Suheil Bin Amr and sons of Abdud-Dar, were reckoned with the martyrs of the battle of Yarmuk.
As-Samani’s Al-Ansab; 3/110:
…An-Nudeir Bin Al-Harith was one of the immigrators. He was one of the most remarkable self-possessed men of Quraish. He was martyred in the battle of Yarmuk. His brother is An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith whom was killed by Ali Bin Abi Talib just after the battle of Badr. He was the demander intended in God’s saying: (One demanding…
Besides many other books, the same is recorded in Ikmalul Kemal; 1/327.
DID AN-NUDEIR FOLLOW HIS BROTHER AND NEPHEW IN OBJECTING AGAINST THE PROPHET?
The Shiite reference books of hadith narrate a strange dispute with the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) in Al-Madina. The other party was An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith Al-Fihri. It seems that clerical errors occurred for the words. Providing that the party was An-Nudeir, the incident must have occurred in Al-Madina after the Farewell Pilgrimage.
Al-Bahrani’s Madinetul Maajiz; 2/267:
… An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith greeted the Prophet and said: “O God’s messenger! You are the master of Adam’s offspring, and your brother is the master of the Arabs, and Fatima; your daughter, is the mistress of women of this world, and Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein; your sons, are the masters of the young in the Paradise, and your uncle is the master of the martyrs, and your cousin is the two-winged who shall use his wings in the Paradise, and your uncle is the protector between your eyes, and Sheiba has the custody -of the Sacred House of God-; what then has been kept for the Quraishis and the Arabs? In the beginning of Islam, you have informed that if we believe in your sayings, we shall enjoy the same rights you enjoy, and we shall submit to the same obligations imposed upon you.”
For a considerable while, the Prophet nodded his head down. He then raised the head and said: “It was not I who did this to them. It was surely Allah who did. What is my sin then?”
An-Nadr went away saying: “O Allah! If this has been the truth sent from Thee, then rain us with a heavenly stone or inflict a painful chastisement upon us.”
Immediately, God revealed: (And they say: If this has been the truth sent from Thee, then rain us with a heavenly stone or inflict a painful chastisement upon us.)
The Prophet summoned An-Nadr and recited this Verse before him… The man sought the Prophet’s permitting him to leave Al-Madina since he could no longer live there. The Prophet advised him and told that God would grant him well if he would become self-possessed and use clemency…
The Prophet permitted him. The man went out repeating his same statement. As soon as he left the city, a bird catching a stone came straightly above him and cast that stone. An-Nadr and his pack animal were killed. Hence, God revealed: (One demanding…
On page 488 of part 2 of As-Sira, Ibn Husham avers that An-Nudeir is called Al-Harith, too. Al-Yaqubi, in Tarikh; 2/63, names him Al-Harith Bin Al-Harith Bin Kilda. This is a suspicious matter. The noble tribes revered the fathers’ names; therefore they neither changed it nor did they add anything to it. Hence, it is strange to notice that a man had two names one of which was his father’s.
This may lead to the probability that they had a third brother named Al-Harith. This might have been the very person whom were cast by a heavenly thunderbolt or stone because he objected against the Prophet’s declaring the leadership of Ali and his sons.
In due course, the befalling chastisement was inflicted upon three individuals of this family; the father in the battle of Badr, and Jabir, as Abu Ubeid asserts, and Al-Harith. Hence, they should be called the family of the befalling chastisement.
It is also likely that An-Nudeir -or Al-Harith- who objected, was not killed by that befalling chastisement, since some historians mention Syria as the place of his death.
At any rate, the most ascertained matter is that there was a man who objected against the Prophet. Athalabi, together with some Shias, asserts that a heavenly stone was inflicted upon Al-Harith Bin An-Numan Al-Fihri.
In the narrations recorded in Al-Hasakani’s, Al-Kafi and Al-Menaqib, the name of Al-Harith Bin Amr Al-Fihri is cited.
This is the name of another man. In As-Sira; 2/499, Ibn Kutheir refers to a man named Amir Bin Al-Harith Al-Fihri. Others name him Amr. The entire scholars could not provide any further information.
This proves that Al-Harith upon whom the heavenly stone was inflicted is different from that son of Abdud-Dar. It is also proved that another heavenly stone was inflicted upon Jabir Bin An-Nadr Al-Abdari, whom is mentioned in Abu Ubeid’s narration.

THE TWO -OR MORE- MOST LICENTIOUS OF QURAISH
Reference books of hadith verify that the most evil Quraishi tribes, that harmed the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), were the Umayids and sons of Al-Mughira. It is the clan of Abu Jahl Bin Makhzum. They are described as the two most licentious. We should add sons of Abdud-Dar to them. In fact, when the Hashemites and few others are excluded, it becomes arduous to distinguish the other Quraishis.
As-Suyouti’s Ad-Durrul Manthour; 4/85:
As he recited God’s saying, (Have you not seen those who have changed Allah’s favor for ungratefulness,) Omar Bin Al-Khattaab stated: “They are the two most licentious houses of Quraish; sons of Umaya and sons of Al-Mughira. Concerning the latter, you have completed with them on the battle of Badr. As to sons of Umaya, they are respited for a term.”
This seems to be a prophetic statement repeated by Omar. This obliges him to answer the following question: What for did he assign Muawiya; the Umayid, as the governor of Syria, and allow him to behave completely freely? What for did he arrange the coming caliphate in a way enabled Othman’s relative; the Umayid, to have the veto? Owing to so, the Islamic state was completely served to the most licentious house of Quraish!!

Copyright © 1998 - 2018 Imam Reza (A.S.) Network, All rights reserved.