Third objection
This verse was revealed in reply to what idolaters of Mecca said and chastisement did not descend on them due to the auspiciousness of the presence of the Prophet there, as the Almighty Allah says:
وَمَا كَانَ اللهُ لِيُعَذِّبَهُمْ وَأَنْتَ فِيهِمْ وَمَا كَانَ اللهُ مُعَذِّبَهُمْ وَهُمْ يَسْتَغْفِرُونَ
“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.”1
Reply
There is no connection between chastisement not descending on the polytheists in Mecca and descent of chastisement on this man in the captioned incident; because acts of Almighty Allah change according to exigency. Since the Almighty Allah knew that some disbelievers of Mecca will embrace Islam later on or that some Muslims would be born from their loins, that is why He did not chastise them. Otherwise the aim of the declaration of prophethood would not be fulfilled.
But since Almighty Allah saw that this person had permanently turned away from guidance to his previous deviation – just as Nuh (a.s.) saw this same quality in his people and said:
إِنَّكَ إِنْ تَذَرْهُمْ يُضِلُّوا عِبَادَكَ وَلَا يَلِدُوا إِلَّا فَاجِرًا كَفَّارًا
“For surely if Thou leave them they will lead astray Thy servants, and will not beget any but immoral, ungrateful (children)”2
He responded with the chastisement he himself demanded.
The presence of the Prophet is a blessing, which keeps chastisement away from Islamic Ummah, but perfect blessing is that it should remove the hurdles on the illuminated path of Islam. That is why Allah, the Mighty and the High destroyed that filthy man due to his opposition to the Caliphate announced by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Just as His Eminence, in his battles, uprooted corruption and rebellion through his sword and he used to curse those from whom there was no hope of ever embracing faith.
In Saheeh Muslim,3 it is narrated through Ibne Masud that when Quraish made the work difficult for the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), disobeyed him and refused to accept Islam, he said: “O Allah, help me against them like You helped Prophet Yusuf (a.s.) through seven years (of drought).”
Thus, they were afflicted with drought for seven years and there was such shortage of food that they were compelled to consume carrion. So much so that they were able to see only vapor and smoke between the earth and the sky:
فَارْ تَقِبْ يَوْمَ تَأْتِي السَّمَاءُ بِدُخَانٍ مُّبِينٍ
“Therefore keep waiting for the day when the heaven shall bring an evident smoke,”4
The above verse hints at this incident. Bukhari5 has also mentioned this incident. The book of Isabah6 , quoting from Baihaqi6 through the channel of Malik bin Dinar has mentioned it. It is narrated from Hind bin Khadija, wife of the Prophet, that one day the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) passed before Hakam [Hakam bin Abil Aas bin Umayyah, father of Marwan] and Hakam gestured towards the Prophet with his finger [he ridiculed him]. When the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) saw him in his pose, he said: “O God, make him involved in trembling.” It was at this time that his knees began to shake and the curse of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) took effect.
Fourth objection
If this is true, it would be like the incident of the people of the elephant and like the people of elephant, it would have been narrated in excess. Since authors of books of traditions, exegesists, biographers and their like have not narrated this incident in entirety – except this unacceptable chain of narrators – it shows that the story is baseless and false.
Reply
To compare this incident – which was a personal story and was such that it did not create a vacuum in the society, after those numerous objectives existed to conceal its existence, in such way that they even forgot the declaration of Ghadeer – to the incident of the people of elephant – a great event, which is regarded as a miracle of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and huge multitude was destroyed before the eyes of everyone, and a group, which was the most superior of the nations, was saved and their sacred relics remained intact, in the same way, the House which was the place of circumambulation for nations and the aim of the Hajj pilgrims, which at that time was the greatest expression of the Lord, remained secure – exaggeration is obvious in the numerosity of the objectives of its narration; because according to the rule of need, motives in the first story, by ranks are lesser than motives in the second story.
Thus, these contradictions can clearly be seen among the miracles of the Prophet; some miracles are narrated by solitary reports and some mentioned in excess and some also are having consensus among Muslims, without there being need of chain of authorities. The objective of such differences is the difference of greatness of the miracles or issues accompanying them.
As for the claim of Ibne Taymiyyah that classes of writers have not mentioned this tradition at all, is another exaggeration, because we mentioned that writers, including authorities in science, exegesists, Hafiz scholars of traditions, historians, who are highly praised in books and a large number of scholars have extolled them, they have narrated this tradition.
Till now the implication of his statement: “This chain of narrators is unknown” is not for me; because this tradition is narrated only by the great companion, Huzaifah bin Yaman7 and Sufyan bin Uyyana, whose prominence in knowledge and tradition is clear and they are well known to be trustworthy in traditions.8
But Ibne Taymiyyah has considered the chains of narrators of this tradition invalid and regards its text to be a matter of dispute; as none of them is compatible with his corrupt style and crooked nature.