Abu Jafar Al Tahawi- The last Hanafi leader from Egypt.

An Account of the Life of One of the Greatest Traditionist, Jurisprudent and Theologian of the Hanafi School.

Abu Ja‘far Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Salamah Al Azdi, Al Hajri, Al- Tahawi, was born at Taha, a village in upper Egypt. His forefathers came from the Yemen to Egypt and settled there after it had come under the Muslim rule. There is a considerable difference of opinion as to the year of his birth. The years 229/843, 230/844, 238/852 and 239/853 are mentioned by different biographers. Al-Sam‘ani asserts that he was born in 229/843 and this is correct. He died in Egypt in 321/933.¹

Al Tahawi was mainly interested in Hadith and Fiqh, and was regarded as one of the greatest Muhaddithin and fuqaha’ of his time. According to Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi, he was the last leader of Hanafi Fiqh in Egypt.² He began to study Shafi‘i Law under his maternal uncle abu Ibrahim Isma‘il Al-Muzani (d. 264/878), the most celebrated pupil of Imam Al Shafa'i, and then leaving his school he took up the study of Hanafi Law under Al Shaykh Abu Ja‘far Ahmad bin Abi Imran (d. 285/898), who became the Chief Qadi of Egypt in 270/883. Different versions are given by his biographers of his conversion to Hanafi school, but the most probable reason seems to be that the system of Imam Abu Hanifah appealed to his critical insight more than that of Imam Shafa‘i. 

Al Tahawi went to Syria in 268/882 for further studies in Hanafi Law and became a pupil of Qadi Abu Khazim ‘Abd al-Hamid bin Ja‘far, the then Chief Justice of Syria. He learnt hadith from a large number of Shaykh's especially from those who visited Egypt at his time, and had also many pupils of distinction. He is a distinguished author of many important works of which the following may be mentioned here: 

1) Sharah Maa'ni Al Athar. 

2) Mushkil Al Athar.

3) Ahkam Al Qur'an.

4) Ikthilaf Al- Ulama.

5) Al-Nawddir Al-Fiqhiyyah.

6) Kitab Al-Shurut al-Kabir.

7) Al Shurut Al-Ausat.

8) Sharh Al Jami Al Saghir.

9) Sharh Al-Jami Al Kabir.

10) Al Mukhtasar.

11) Manaqib Abu Hanifah.

12) Tarikh Al Kabir.

13) Al Radd Ala Kitab Al Mudallisin.

14) Al Radd Ala Abi Ubayd.

15) Al Radd Ala Isa bin Abban.

16) Hukm Aradi Makkah etc.

His original contribution to Hadith literature, so far as we can estimate, is that he introduced a new system of collecting legal traditions, developed a new method of interpreting and harmonizing the conliicting traditions, and adopted a new criterion for criticizing them. His predecessors and contemporaries, the authors of Al Sihah Al Sittah (the Six Canonical Compilations) collecting traditions according to their own standards and principles, left out a large number of genuine traditions. Al Tahawi made a strenuous effort to collect all the genuine legal traditions of the Prophet, narrated by different authorities on a particular subject, together with the opinions of the Companions of the Prophet, their Successors and the distinguished jurisprudents. He then scrutinized traditions (ahadith) and showed by evidence which of them were authentic, strong, weak, unknown, or such as might be supposed to have been repealed. Thus, his collection provided for the scholars an unprecedented opportunity to judge for themselves the merits or demerits of a particular tradition. The criterion for judging the genuineness of a tradition, according to the Traditionists in general, was the Isnad (chain of the narrators), and so they paid greater attention to the scrutiny of the isnad than to the scrutiny of the text (mam) of a tradition. But Al-Tahawi, while scrutinizing a tradition, took into consideration the main as well as the isnad of the tradition. He also aimed at a harmonizing interpretation in case of conflicting traditions. 

Al Tahawi, like Al Maturidi, was a follower of Imam Abu Hanifah (d. 150/ 767) in jurisprudence as well as in theoloy. He wrote a. little treatise on theology named Bayan al Sunnah wal-Jama‘ah, generally known as 'Aqidat Al Tahawiyyah. In the introduction to this treatise he says he will give therein an account of the beliefs of the Ahl al-sunnah wal jama'ah according to the views of Imam Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad Al- Shaybani the well-known jurisprudents of the community. So the importance of his creed lies in the fact that it corroborates the views of Imam Abu Hanifah, the founder of the school, that have come down to us from different sources. Al-Tahawi made no attempt to explain the views of the Imam or to solve the old theological problems by advancing any new arguments. His sole aim was to give a summary of the views of the Imam and to show indirectly that they were in conformity with the traditional views of the orthodox school. 

Imam Abu Hanifah directed his movement against the Kharijites, Qadarites. Mu‘tazilites, shi‘ites, Jabarites, the extreme Murji’ites, and the Hashwiyyah³, the last being a group of the orthodox people who under the influence of the converted Jews, Christians, and Magians fell into gross anthropomorphism, and ascribed to God all the characteristics of a created being.‘ He was the first theologian among the fuqaha’ who adopted the principles and method of reasoning and applied them to a critical examination of the articles of faith and the laws of the Shari'ah. That is why he and his followers were called by the 'traditionists the People of Reason and Opinion (Ashab Al Ra'i wa-l Qiyas). This rational spirit and philosophical attitude were more consistently maintained by Al-Maturidi than by Al Tahawi. Their views on the nature of faith. attributes of God, beatitic vision, divine decree, and human freedom may be mentioned here to indicate the distinctive features of their methods. 

To All the scholars mentioned in the above article, "May Allah be pleased with you All."

¹Al Sam'ani, Al Ansab, Leiden, 1912, Pg 368, Ibn Al Nadim, Al Fihrist, Cairo, Pg 292, Jalaluddin Suyuti, Husn Al Muhadarah, Vol 1, Pg 147, Ibn Khallikan, Waf'at Al Ayn, Vol 1, Pg 19, Al Dhahabi, Tadkirat Al Huffaz, Vol 3, Pg 28, 1915 ed.

²Al Dhahabi, Tadhkirat Al Huffaz, Vol 3, Pg 28, Jalaluddin Suyuti, Husn Al Muhadarah, Vol 1, Pg 147.

According to M.M Sharif, Abdullah Ibn Saba, a convert from Judaism introduced and propagated Anthropomorphic ideas among the Muslims during the caliphate of Ali. He quoted Al Shahrastani to support his claim.

⇛ The following article is written from the book, "The History of Muslim Philosophy- Vol 2," Pg 268 by M.M. Sharif.

Who is a Sahabi?- An Argument Where The Muta'zila Were More Meticulous Than The Traditionists!

The Inconsistency of the Traditionists and their errant Definition for Sahaba.

Note: This is the other half of the Previous article. To read the first part click here

Who is a Sahabi?- The understanding of the expression by the Early Muslims

The legal status of those who saw the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was a factor, i.e., whether or not they had reached puberty (baligh) when they met him. During the Prophet's lifetime some of the Companions did produce children. Their parents usually brought them to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Prophet would pray for them, cut their hair and give them their first food, and sometime give them their names. Yet when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم passed away most of these children had not yet reached puberty. Were they be counted as Companions as well? On this issue the Traditionists were bitterly divided. Yahya ibn Ma’een, Abu Zurah, Abi Hatim and Abu Dawud were of the opinion that those who had not reached legal majority when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم passed away cannot be considered as Companions[1]. They insisted that these children enjoyed the privilege of "seeing" the Prophet but did not have his "Companionship" (lahu ru’yah wa laysat lahu suhbah). Al-Ala’i even denies that they ever truly saw him (wa-la Suhbata lahu wa- la ru’yata qa’tan) [2]. Al Waqidi is also reported as having held this view[3]. The majority of the Traditionists however disagreed.

 It was too difficult for them to reject the claims of Companions Like Al-Hasan ibn 'Ali and his generation, who knew the prophetic era (asr al- nubuwah) and accepted ri'wayah from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, but reached legal majority only after his Passing away[4].' Were they not to be counted among the Companions, the Traditions reported by them would have fallen into the category of Al Mursal. Their position was by and large similar to that of the Follower’s, although not exactly so. We saw above that the term al-mursal refers to those prophetic Traditions whose chains of transmission reached back only to the Followers. But the Traditionists had a special term for prophetic Traditions reported by people who had not reached puberty when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم passed away. This term was al-mursal al-Sahaba. Unlike the other mursal this type was not weak and could be used as an authoritative source[5].  Given that the Traditionists insisted that those born in the final years of the Prophet's lifetime deserve the title Companions, it might have been expected that they would include their Traditions in the category of al musnad. That they did not implies that the Traditionists did not see these younger Companions as Companions in the fullest sense of the word.

From the above discussion we can see that, for the Traditionists, membership among the Companions was automatic. It is beyond anybody's control. Whoever met the Prophet, like it or not, had to be included as Companions. Thus men like Al Hakam ibn Abi al As Al Qurayshi Al Umawi, the father of Marwan ibn al-Hakam, whom the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم disliked and whom he expelled from Medina, was nonetheless a companion[6].

There were other scholars who did not see membership as automatic. For them, to be a Companion meant more than just seeing the Prophet. Within the Traditionists' circle those who held this view were known as the Usuliyun. The Traditionists did not bother to explain clearly who the Usuliyun were, being mainly concerned with their views rather than with their identity. So while these views were widely quoted (in order to be refuted), their names are barely mentioned in the sources. But the way they are presented indicates that they must have been the opponents of the Traditionists whose opinions they fought to reject. The most likely candidates of the Usuliyun were in fact the adversaries of the Traditionists, i.e., the Mu'tazilis.

The names of the Usuliyun which are occasionally cited by the Traditionists support this assumption, in that they include Ibn al-Sibagh, Abu al-Husayn al-Basri, al- Kiya' al-Tabari, and 'Amr ibn Yahya. Abu al-Husayn and 'Amr ibn Yahya were Mutazilis; Amr ibn Yahya, the Traditionists claimed, was none other than Abu 'Uthman al-Jahiz (d. 255/868 in Basra), one of the leading Mu'tazïIi scholar and a student of the Mutazili theologian Al Nazzam[7]. Ab'u al-Husayn was for his part a famous Mu’taziIi scholar, active in Baghdad, who died in 436/1044[8].  According to the author of al-Wadih the leading figures (shuyukh) of the Mu'tazilis held views similar to those of Abu al- Husayn[9].

In contrast to the Traditionists, the Usuliyun insisted that the name Companion be given only to those who accompanied the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم  for a long time, and who often had sessions with him."[10]. Thus Ibn Al-Sibagh is said to have asserted that

The Companions were those who met the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and stayed with him and followed him; those who came to him and departed from him without accompanying and following him therefore did not deserve this title.[11]

Abu al-Husayn apparently said more or less the same thing:

To be a Companion, a person must have two qualifications: one is to have had long sessions (majalis) with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, because a person who only saw him, like those who came to him (al-wafidin) and others, and did not stay long, are not to be named Companions; the other is to have prolonged his stay with him, to have followed him (al- tab’lahu), to have taken (Traditions) from him (Al- Akhdh’anhu), and to have placed himself under his authority (al-itba' anh).[12]

The basis of the Usuliyun argument was that the meaning of the word Suhbah itself necessitates close association[13]. Hence the phrase Ashab Al Rasul (the people of the Prophet) is similar to Ashab Al Qaryah (the people of the village), Ashab al-Kahf wa-al-Raqim (the People of the Cave and Inscription), Ashab Al Jannah (the people of Paradise) and Ashab Al Hadith (the people of Traditions), all of which imply a close association.

Likewise it is obvious that one who only comes to a person or sees him or does business with him cannot be said to have been a companion of that person[14]. The Traditionists, however, insisted otherwise. The word Suhbah, they maintained, never originally signified a long-term association. All linguists agreed that the word Sahabi is derived from the word al-Suhbah. This word is applied, without any restriction, to whoever associates helf with others regardless of whether the association is long or not. It is just like other words such as mukallim (speaker), mukbatib (preacher) and Darib (beater) which are applied to those who perform these acts (i.e., to speak, preach, and beat) regardless of whether they do so once or many times in succession[15]. And Hence, Due to the efforts of the traditionists, I became a Muazin of the local Masjid as I gave the call for Namaz (Aza’an) once.

[By this same logic, we can say that a person is Pious no matter how many times he prays in a Day, no matter how much he respects his parents. If he had done this once, even for a short time, then he should be considered Pious.]

The only trouble was that many within the Traditionists own circle disagreed with this very definition. The view of Hazrat Anas ibn Malik رضي الله عنه and Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab رضي الله عنه has already been mentioned. Their understanding of what a Companion was reflected the customary meaning of the word Suhbah advocated by the Usuliyun. Ali ibn al-Madani, Ibn Hanbal and al-Bukhari also seem to have believed that the term Suhbah did not originally include those who had only seen the Prophet. If this is the case, then what the later Traditionists call the customary meaning (al-mana Al urfi) of Suhbah was actually closer in spirit to the meaning assigned by the earliest generation of Traditionists. And yet, how could Traditionists like Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab, whose Prophetic Traditions are considered as the soundest of Al Mursal[16] at variance with other Traditionists over so fundamental an issue?

To solve this problem, the Traditionists had to do at least one of two things:

Either reinterpret the past or negate it; they in fact tried to do both. They reinterpreted Anas ibn Malik’s رضي الله عنه statement, saying that what Anas meant by the word "Sahiba' (in "fa amma man Sahibahu fa-la) was a particular kind of Suhbah (al-Suhbah Al Khasah)[17]. The views of Abu Zur'ah and Abu Dawud whose opinions on puberty tended to limit the boundaries of Companionship and therefore could be seen as sympathetic to the position of the Usuliyun were also interpreted in the same way. Thus what they meant was that those who had not reached their legal majority when the Prophet died did not enjoy the status of the special Companionship Suhbah Khassah[18]. They denied that Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab ever made the statement attributed to him, insisting that it must have had its origin among the Usuliyun."[19] They pointed for instance to the fact that its chain of transmission included al-Waqidi, whose reputation among the Traditionists was not very sound.[20] This claim may be accurate; yet it must be kept in mind that not only did the Traditionists acknowledge that al-Waqidi‘ s own definition differed from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab[21] so that it is unlikely that he would have tampered with the latter's definition for his own good-but also that, on other occasions, the Traditionists did not hesitate to use information from al-Waqidi.[22] Sometimes the reason had nothing to do with al-Waqidi. Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab's view was reckoned weak because it necessitated the exclusion of Companions like Jabir ibn 'Abdullah al-Bajali رضي الله عنه who only became a Muslim in the year of the Prophet's passing away[23].. So the issue was not whether this report truly came from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab. It was rejected because it’s content contradicted the formal definition favored by the Traditionists.[As the modern Salafi’s do]. In this case the Traditionists relied on their definition, which was formulated later, to evaluate Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab's, which was formulated earlier."

The result was that the Traditionists extended the meaning of the word Suhbah to include those who were with the Prophet for only a very short time, or who had even had no more than a glimpse of him, claiming this extended meaning to be the original meaning. The Usuliyun words, as quoted by Abu  al-Muzzafar al-Samâni, express this phenomenon correctly :

The Traditionists assign the name Companion to everyone who narrates from the Prophet, a tradition or a word, and they extend (the meaning) so that they also count as Companions those who saw him only one time (ra’ahu Ruyah).[24]

The Traditionists for their part reasoned that, because the Prophet was so eminent, anybody who saw him had been specially favored[25]. To have spent with the Prophet even a (very short) time (sa'atan) was an accomplishment superior to any other. Thus Hazrat Umar ibn Abd al-'Aziz, the most pious Umayyad Caliph, lagged far behind in terms of religious achievement when compared to Mu'awiyah, who rebelled against a legally appointed Caliph 'Ali. As it was expressed "One of Mu'awiyah's days with the Prophet was better than 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz's رضي الله عنه  lifetime and his ‘family[26].

➽Conclusion: There is a need to reform the definition of Sahaba, thus moderating it (protecting it from extremes of both traditionists and Usuliyun). As a student of Islamic studies my opinion on who a Sahabi is as

 A Muslim, who meets the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, attend His (at least) few majalis, accompany Him and remain faithful to Him and His Family and passes away in that condition.

[1] Al Iraqi, Al Taqyid, Pg 292-293.

[2] Al Iraqi, Al Taqyid, Pg 293.

[3] "Wa haka al Qadi Iyyad an Al Waqidi annahu Yashtaritu Baligh," Al Shawkani, Irshad Al Fuhul ila Tahqiq Al Haqq min ilm Al Usul. (Cairo: Mustafa Al Babi Al Halabi  wa Awladuh, 1937), Pg 70.

[4] Al Shawkani, Irshad Al Fuhul ila Tahqiq Al Haqq min ilm al Usul (Cairo: Mustafa Al  Babi Al Halabi, 1937), Pg 70; Ibn Hajr, Fath Al Bari, Vol 7, Pg 4; Al Suyuti, Tadrib Al Rawi, Pg 397; Al Hakim Al Nisaburi assigned them to the lowest level of the class of companions; See his Ma'arifat, Pg 22.

[5] Al Qasimi, Qawaid, Pg 148.

[6] Ibn Abd Al Barr, Al Istiab, Vol 1, Pg 359-360.

[7] Ibn Khallikan, Wafayat Al Ayn, ed. Ihsan Abbas (Beirut: Dar Sadir,n.d), Vol 2,  Pg 471, 474; Ibn Al Murtada, Kitab Tabaqat Al Mutazilah, ed. Susanna Diwald Wilzer (Beirut; Al Matba'ah Al Kathulikiyah, 1961), Pg 68,70.

[8] Ibn Khallikan, Wafayat Al Ayn, Vol 4, Pg 271.

[9] Al Sakhawi, Fath Al Mughith, Vol 3, Pg 92.

[10] Ibn Al Salah, Ulum Al Hadith, Pg 393, Al Amidi, Al Ihkam, Pg 130; Al Nawawi, Al  Taqrib, Pg 81-82, Tadhib Al Asma, Vol 1, Pg 14; al Sakhawi, Irshad Al Fuhul, Pg 70; Al  Bihari, Kitab Musallam Al Thubut (Cairo):Al Matba'ah Al Husayniyah Al Misriyah, 1908), Vol 2, Pg 120.

[11] Al Iraqi, Al Taqyid, Pg 297; Al Sakhawi, Fath Al Mughith, Vol 3, Pg 92.

[12] Abu Al Husayn Al Basri, Al Mu'tamad Fi Usul Al Fiqh (Damascus: Al Ma'had Al Ilmi Al Firansi lil Dirasat Al Arabiyah, 1965), Vol 2, Pg 666.

[13] Ibn Al Salah, Ulum Al Hadith, Pg 293; Al Suyuti, Tadrib Al Raawi, Pg 398.

[14] Al Amidi, Al Ihkam, Pg 133-134. See Also Al Basri, Al  Mu'tamad, Vol 2, Pg 666-667. Compare the Usuliyun's argument with the Shi'is. They share the view that the title "Companion" should only be given to those who really close to the Prophet. But, whereas the Usuliyun basically open the possibility of being a companion to every Muslim. The Shi'i limits this title to the descendants of the Prophet. They divide companionship into two: The true companionship (al Suhbah Al Haqiqiyah) and the external companionship (Al Suhbah Al Zahir Al Amr). Unlike the later, the former is applied only to those who complied fully with the Prophets Commands and prohibitions and followed him in everything that came from Him. And this is only applied to the imams of his descndants (al a'immah min  dhurriyatih). See Ibn Hayyun, Tarbiyat Al Muminin or Ta'wil Da'a'im Al Islam, Ms. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Ms. 25736, 20 recto.

[15] Khatib Al Baghdadi, Al Kifayah, Pg 69-70; Al Iraqi, Al Taqyid, Pg 296-297; Al Suyuti, Tadrib Al Rawi, Pg 398.

[16] The reaon why his Prophetic traditions enjoy such a high esteem is because he was the son of a companion (His father was among the Ashab Al Shajarah and was present at the Bay'at al Ridwan) and because he was one of the only two sucessors who knew (adraka) and heard reports from the Ten companions to whom the Prophet promised Paradise. See Al Hakim Al Nisaburi, Ma'rifat, Pg 25.

[17] al Iraqi, Fath Al Mughith, Vol 4, Pg 338; Al Sakhawi, Fath Al Mughith, Vol 3, Pg 93. It seems that the traditionists often used this approach to interpret any statement coming from other traditionists that contradicted their view. Thus when Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal was reported to have denied Maslamah ibn Mukhallad's companionship (Suhbah), Ibn Hajr says that what Ahmed bin Hanbal meant was particular companionship (al Suhbah Al Khassah) (Ibn Hajr, Al Isabah, Vol 3, pg 398). Likewise when Muhammad Ibn Awf says that he does not know if Malik Ibn Hunayrah had companionship, it is interpreted by Ibn Hajr to mean, once again, that Muhammad ibn Awf is referring to the particul;ar companionship (Ibn Hajr, Al Isabah, Vol 3, Pg 337).

[18] Al Iraqi, Fath Al Mughith, Vol 4, Pg 338; Al Sakhawi, Fath Al Mughith, Vol 3, Pg 95.

[19] Ibn Al Salah, Ulum Al Hadith, Pg 293.

[20] Al Iraqi, Al Taqyid, Pg 297; Al Suyuti, Tadrib Al Rawi, Pg 398. The full Isnaad of Ibn Al Musayyab's view is given by Khatib Al Baghdadi, Al Kifayah, Pg 68-69.

[21] "Qala Ibn Amr [al waqidi]: ra'aytu ahl al- ilm yaquluna kull man ra'a Rasul Allah Salla Allah alayhi was sallama wa qad adraka al- hilm wa aqala amr al din wa- radiyahu fa huwa indana min man sahiba Al Nabi salla Allah alayhi was sallama wa law sa'atan min nahr" (Khatib al Baghdadi, Al Kifayah, Pg 68-69).

[22] Reading biographical dictionaries on the companions, one can see clearly the truth of this statement. The traditionists’ argument for differentiating between historical information and Hadith information (to make the point that, while we can accept his information on Hadith) is problematic. How can we decide that Al Waqidi's information concerning Sa'id bin Al Mussayab belongs to the hadith and therefore should be rejected while his information about other people belongs to history and therefore can be accepted?

[23] Al Nawawi, Al Taqrib, Pg 82; Al Suyuti, Tadrib Al Ra'awi, Pg 398-399.

[24] Ibn Al Salah, Uloom Al Hadith, Pg 292.

[25] Ibn Al Salah, Uloom Al Hadith, Pg 292, Ibn Kathir, Al Ba'ith, Pg 98; Al Iraqi, Fath Al Mughith, Vol 4, Pg 337. The Usuliyun have a different way of seeing it. To them, the position of Companion was so prestigious that not just anybody can easily achieve it. It must be more than just seeing the Prophet. So the difference is that while the traditionists make the Prophet the starting point for defining the companions, the Usuliyun give more weight to the high position of the companions (because the position of the companions is so eminent).

[26] Ibn Kathir, Al Ba'ith, pg 98. There are others who refuse to pass judgement on who was superior, Muawiyah or Hazrat Umar ibn Abdul Aziz. The reason given is that because Muawiyah was a "companion" (according to traditionists), possessing adalah, the issue cannot even be discussed (Ibn Abd Al Barr, Jami Al Bayan al Ilm was fadlihi wa ma Yanbaghi fi Riwayatihi wa Hamlih, ed. Abd Al Rahman Muhammad Uthman (Madina: Al Maktabah Al Salafiyah, 1968).,Vol 2, Pg 227. Since however Muawiyah is being compared with Umar ibn Abd Al Aziz who was not a companion, can the refusal to pass judgement be interpreted as an implicit acknowledgement of the inferiority of Muawiya?

Was Prophet Muhammad affected with Magic? - The Story of Labid bin Asam Al Yahuddi.

Was the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم affected by Black Magic?

The muʿawwidhatayn (Surah Falaq and Surah Nass) are said to have been revealed in order to dispel the magic spell that a certain man named Labid bin A'saam had cast on the Prophet Muhammad[1]. Labid bin A'saam according to many accounts, managed briefly to bewitch the Prophet Muhammad, leaving him in a catatonic state. He was unable to function until God provided the text of surah 113, Al-Falaq, which was used, according to the account, in order to counteract the effects of the magic spell. Although nominally a Muslim[2]  Labid belongs to the small group of Jews who, according to the Muslim reports, converted to Islam in order to subvert it, or to cause physical damage to its leading figures during the time of the Prophet and the first caliphs. These include such figures as Ibn Al-Sayyad, 'Abdallah bin Al-Saba' and Ka'b Al-Ahbar, who are occasionally the objects of conspiracy theories in Christian literature as well. Labid was the one to innovate the doctrine of the creation of the Qur'an and was first formulated by him, and was passed on to his nephew Talut (i.e. Shaul, apparently a converted Jew) to the forefathers of the Mu'tazila sect[3]. Although the story of Labid is historical, it rarely appears in the modern biographies of the Prophet nor is he mentioned in the list of the companions even though other admittedly bad Muslims (like 'Abdallah bin Ubayy and Ibn Sayyad) are listed. The verses of the Qur'anic passage in sum 113 (verses 1-5) in question read as follows:

"I seek refuge in the Lord of daybreak

From the evil of that which He created

And from the evil of darkness when it settles

And from the evil of the females who blows on knots

And from the evil of an envier when he envies.

This surah and the following final surah have been controversial in Islam; some early copies of the Qur'an did not include them as part of the authoritative text (like the codex of Ibn Mas'ud)[4]. The language and grammatical style of the sura are difficult[5], and can be explained only by twisting the rules of Arabic grammar as is done for the purpose of an incantation[6]. 

However, much though the grammar pained the commentators, it was the story of Labid al-Yahudi and his bewitching of the Prophet Muhammad which made them the most uncomfortable. The idea that the Seal of the Prophets, the infallible Messenger of God, could be treated in this manner, even for a short time, was unacceptable to the majority of scholars.

➨ SCHOLAR'S WHO BELIEVED THAT THE ACCOUNT OF LABID BIN ASAM ACTUALLY OCCURED:

Since the story about Labid is one which developed over a long period of time, we should deal with it chronologically, tracing it through the centuries as the commentators grappled with it and sought to overcome the difficulties inherent therein for the Muslim. One of the earliest such commentators is 

➢Muqatil bin Sulayman (d. 150/762), and he bring this account in full:

[in giving the reasons for the revelation of the last two suras of the Qur'an] ... and was this [because] Labid bin A'sam bin Malik, or it is said, Ibn A'sam al-Yahudi, bewitched the Prophet with eleven knots on a string (watar) and placed it in a well in which there were seven stones, by means of a spathe of a [male] palm tree that the Prophet would lean against. The bewitchment spread through him [the Prophet] and it intensified for three days until he was very sick, and the women [his wives] became anxious [for him], and the suras of taking refuge [= the two suras being discussed] were revealed. As the Prophet was sleeping, he saw as if there were two angels who came to him, and one of them was [sitting] at his head, and the other at his feet. One of them said to his companion: 'What ails him?' and the companion said: 'Enchantment'. He said: 'Who enchanted him?', and the other said: 'Labid bin A'sam al-Yahudi'. 'By what [means]?' 'By [means] of a husk of palm'. 'Where [is it]?' 'In the well of so-and-so'. 'And what is the cure?' 'Remove the water from the well, and take out the husk of palm and burn it, and the knots will break, each knot at the reading of the mu'awwidhatayn [the verses of taking refuge, the last two suras of the Qur'an], and that will heal him'. When the Prophet woke up, he sent Ali Ibn Abi Talib to the well, and the magical device was removed, and he brought it, and burned that husk.

Then the angel Gabriel revealed the verses, and the Prophet was healed and the news was brought to the women[7].

Many other early commentators mention this story in detail. 
➢ Abu 'Ubayda (d. 210/825), the famed philologist who was himself of Jewish descent, does not mention this in the extant version of his Majiz al-Qur'an, though his version is quoted by Fakhr Al-Din Al- Razi in his commentary. 

➢ Sahl bin Abdallah al-Tustari (d. 283/896) gives a much shorter version of Muqatil's tradition, but adds a few details. He says that the name of the well in which the device was placed was one which belonged to Banu Bayda' However, he does not discuss the effects of the magic on the Prophet, nor does he mention the Prophet's vision of the two angels[8].

➢ Al-Farra' (d. 207/822) knows even less than al-Tustari; he does not mention that the Jews are the guilty party, and only says that the Prophet suffered for an undefined length of time, then had a vision of two angels[9].

A number of the hadith and biographical works include this story, including Al-Bukhari, who cites the most serious charge: the Prophet was sexually unable to approach his wives[10] Early biographers, including Ibn Hisham, also mention the story[11]. Al-Bayhaqi relates a number of accounts, although usually without any hint of the impotence motif[12].

However, by the time the story reaches the Shi'i commentator ➢Al-Furat bin Ibrahim al-Kufi (lived third/ninth centuries -874/-941) it has become much more elaborate:

Labid bin A'sam Al-Yahudi and Umm 'Abdallah Al-Yahudiyya bewitched the Messenger of God with a knot of silk (! qazz) red, green and yellow, and tied it for him [the Prophet] with eleven knots, and then placed it on a spathe of palm- he said in other words, the husks of almond (?)- and then he put it in the well of a wadi in Medina in the stepping-stone of the well beneath the ra'ufa, meaning the outer stone[16]. The Prophet went for three [days] without eating, drinking, hearing or seeing anything or going to women [for sexual intercourse]. Then Gabriel came down to him, and brought down with him the mu'awwidhatayn, and said to him: 'O Muhammad, what is the matter with you?' He said: 'I do not know; I am as you see!' And then he said: 'Umm "Abdallah and Labid bin A'sam bewitched you', and he informed him of the magical device's location.

Thereupon the Prophet recited the verses of the suras, and the binding cords of the magic fell off[13]. Then the Prophet sent for Labid and remonstrated with him, and afterwards cursed him, saying that he would not leave this world in good health {saliman). Shortly thereafter, his hand was cut off for some minor offence, and then he dies[14].

Qur'anic material about the magicians ability to deny sexual pleasure is documented, when in connection with the teachings of the enigmatic angels Harut and Marut it is said 'so they learn from them the means by which they separate man and wife' (2:102). While the commentators do not give many details on this verse, one may well assume that this sort of magic provides the basis for the story of Labid Al-Yahudi[15]. Thus, for a magician to manifest the ability to deny the Prophet this power is evidence of great power, and an issue with which later commentators felt very uncomfortable. The Prophet does not come off looking very impressive here: he cannot perform any of the normal functions and he does not know what has happened to him to boot. The Muslim reader is left with mixed feelings at the end of the story, for the punishment that Labid receives for this heinous act is not very great (though it is far greater than any meted out in earlier versions in which nothing is mentioned about the aftermath).

Other commentators mention the issue of sexual domination by the magician as well. ➢Al-Samarqandi (d. 375/985) in one of the two versions that he quotes, follows Muqatil in a shortened form which adds nothing to our discussion. However, in a second tradition he introduced new elements. He writes: Labid bin A'sam made a puppet (lu'ba) of the Prophet, and he [Muhammad] was taken from A'isha and the Messenger of God was made impotent (afhala), and then he placed on the puppet eleven knots and threw it in a well and threw a stone upon it. He [Muhammad] suffered from this terribly. The two angels then come to give the Prophet their advice, which he heeds, as in Muqatil's version[16].

➢Al-Mawardi (d. 450/1058) adds that it was not a single person that accomplished the feat, but a group (qawm). Other than that, he used Muqatil's story[17].

➢ Al-Wahidi (d. 468/1075) embellishes the story even further, adding new elements: 

A Jewish youth served the Messenger of God, and the Jews came to him [the youth], and continued [to harass] him, until he took the combing hairs [the Prophet's hair that had fallen out during the combing process] and some teeth of his comb, and gave them to the Jews, whereupon they bewitched him with them [the hair]. The one who was in charge of this was Labid b. A'sam al-Yahudi, then he concealed it in a well belonging to Banu Zurayq called Dharwan, and the Messenger of God sickened and his hair fell out. He would think that he went into his women, when he did not go into them. The two angels then come in a vision, give Muhammad the expected advice, and three messengers of the Prophet, 'Ali, Al-Zubayr bin Al-'Awwam, and 'Ammar bin Yasir go to the well and draw out the water, which was like diluted henna (ka-annahu nuqa'atu al-hinna) in other words, very thick, so that nothing could be seen inside). They find the spathe with eleven knots tied, the comb, the hair, and the string with a needle stuck in it.[18]

➢ Al-Baghawi (d. 516/1122) quotes Al-Wahidi in one of the two versions that he brings. In the other, he does not mention Labid at all, rather an unnamed Jewish man. The main point of this very short story is that the Prophet suffers and then is released[19].

➢ Al-Naysaburi combines several traditions, but rejects the idea of sexual impotency of the Prophet, but again he allows that some of the limbs of the Prophet were out of his control for a time[20].

➢ Ibn Al-Jawzi (d. 597/1200) quotes the mistake about the place name; otherwise he holds to Al-Wahidi[21].

➢ Muhyi Al-Din Ibn Al-'Arabi (d. 638/1240) also continues this mistake, and though he words the tradition differently, he adds no new content[22]. Neither He nor Fakhr Al-Din Al-Razi (d. 604/1207) sees fit to reject the story, although they do not emphasize it either. Al-Razi is one of the first to introduce the 'daughters of Labid', presumably to get the story more in line with the verse, as was already noted above, and takes this opportunity to speak about magic in general[23].

➢ Al-Qurtubi (d. 671/1272), knows the stories about this episode which are in Al-Bukhari (quoted in his Sahih), and does not comment on whether he thinks that the event really happened, though he permits himself an extensive discussion on magic[24]. He does, however, mention a totally new tradition about Jewish women bewitching the Prophet, with our exact story-line[25].

➢ Ibn Kathir (d. 774/1374) does not comment on the story; he simply confines himself to quoting Al-Bukhari and Al-Thalabi[26]. This is to be expected in light of the fact that the idea of the Prophet's bewitchment clearly did not find favor with Ibn Kathir's master, Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328), who ignored it altogether in his own commentary[27].

⇛ SCHOLARS WHO REJECTED THE NARRATION OF BEWITCHMENT OF THE PROPHET:

⇒ Several problematic points about this early version of the story need to be addressed. Most notably it has absolutely no connection with the verses of the Qur'an with which it has been associated. One notices this immediately upon reading the verses. Even the one verse that might conceivably be connected to Muqatil's account, that which speaks of 'women blowing on knots' (113:4) receives no mention in the story. No women are involved except these wives of the Prophet himself, and they are obviously not malevolent[8]. Scholars see other difficulties in the story. For example, though the surah is universally declared to have been revealed during the Meccan period of the Prophet's life (before the immigration to Medina in 622), the milieu is obviously Medinan[9]. There were no Jews to speak of in Mecca, no palm trees, and not very many wells. The Prophet's numerous wives also date from the Medinan period of his ministry; He only had two wives (A'isha and Sawda) when he came to Medina, and 'A'isha was a very young girl and previous to them, only Khadija.

➢ Imam Abu Mansur al-Māturidī (d. 944/333 AH), a renowned scholar from the fourth Islamic century and the founder of Māturidī ʿAqīda (theological School), denied the notion that the Prophet (ﷺ) was affected by black magic at all and rejected this hadith. He also said the reason for the revelation (Asbāb al-Nuzūl) of ‘Surah Al-Falaq’ (The Daybreak) and ‘Surah Al-Naas’ (Mankind), which are two portions of the Quran which some claim refer to the Prophet (ﷺ) being affected by magical forces, was not as a result of magic at all but instead he emphasised that the two chapters were revealed whilst the Prophet (ﷺ) was merely on a journey[28].

➢ Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas al-Razi al-Hanafi was a prominent Hanafi jurist from the fourth century, one of the most respected scholars in the field of Uŝūl (epistemic principles), and the grand-teacher of Abul Hasan al Quduri, who wrote the most famous and most commonly used primer in Hanafi jurisprudence, ‘Mukhtasar al-Quduri’. He not only rejected this hadith but stated “the ignorant of the Hashawis (anthropomorphists, those who believe that God is a form or body bound by space) narrated this hadith without knowing it was fabricated[29].

➢ The Mu’tazilite scholar Al-Zamakhshari (538 AH) gives this explanation:

“al-Naffathat are women or persons or groups of magicians who fix their desires in strings and blow and spit on them by extreme blowing together with saliva. And there is no real effect through this (lā tā’thīr lidalika) unless when something harmful thing is eaten.[..] But God, almighty and great, acts with this on the path of testing to distinguish those who are fixed on the truth of the gracious civilized people from those of the ignorant barbaric masses.”[30]

Another example is the early Mu'tazilite judge ➢Abū Bakr al-'Asamm (220 AH) who explains the verse in a way which is very similar to the modernist Muhammad Ali whereby the verse is not seen as relating to witchcraft but only to bad influence:

“The female blowers [of inspirations] are those who incline (yamilna) the opinions of men (āra’ al-Rijāl), they divert them (ya’rifnahum) of their [original] intentions and make them turn towards (yaruddunahum ilā) the opinions (of the blowers) in order to change (ya’bur) the determination and opinions in one’s resolution (bil- ‘Uqad). And this change towards dissolving [one’s opinion] is through the blowing [of thoughts], and indeed the tyrannizing behaviour (al-’āduh jartu) is that man dissolves [someone’s] resolution by blowing [other thoughts] into it.”[31]

➢ Al-Māturidī (333 AH) mentions that al-’Asamm believed the bewitching of the Prophet is not possible (lā yajūz) and so he rejected (fataraktuhu) the traditions that claim this[32]. The reason for rejecting these traditions by the Mu’tazilah is explained by the famous Mu’tazilite ‘Abd al-Jabbār (1025 CE) who says these reports are completely false (bātil) because according to the Qur’ān God has protected the Prophet against mankind (ya’simuka min al-Nāss, Q. 5:67), that sorcerers never succeed (lā yuflihu al-Sāhir, Q. 20:69), and that these reports lead to the slander of prophethood (yufadī ilā al-Qadh fī al-Nabuwwah) which does damage (al-Darūr) to all the prophets as this would mean these sorcerers would have the power to control their souls, and this, according to ‘Abd al-Jabbār, is certainly not possible[33].

➢ The famous early Maturidī Hanafī jurist Abū Bakr al-Jassās (370 AH) says sorcery and magic is just deception and trickery and has no true existence in reality. If magic was true, he asks, why don’t the magicians remove kings, steal their wealth and rule the world? But no, he says, the only place we see magicians is in the marketplaces, they are poor and this proves their magic isn’t real as they would have improved their lives through magic[34].

A number of other early commentators do not mention this story. For example, two early Shi'i commentators, ➢ "Ali Al-Qummi (d. c. 307/919) and Muhammad Al-'Ayyashi (d. 320/932) are silent. This is a tendency which is strong among the Shi'a. Among the early Sunnis, in addition to the aforementioned Abu 'Ubayda, Ibn Jarir Al Tabari, Ahmad bin Shu'ayb Al-Nasa'i (d. 303/915-16), the collector of the hadith collection, did not include this account[20], nor did the Sufi Al-Qushayri (d.465/1072)[35], Hud bin Muhkam al-Hawwari (d.c.third/tenth century)[36], nor did the greatest Qur'anic commentator, ➢ Muhammad bin Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310/922)[37]. Of all of these the real puzzler is al-Tabari. In all likelihood Abu 'Ubayda did write about the subject, but his writings have come down to us only in the form quoted by Fakhr al-Din al-Razi. Al-Nasa'i, al-Qushayri and al-Hawwari only wrote partial commentaries, while the Shi'ites were influenced by the rationalistic school of the Mu'tazila. The reason for al-Tabari's omission of this tradition from his compendium, which is quite remarkable since he makes a rule of at least mentioning almost all the exegetical traditions current in Iraq at his time, remains a question which cannot be answered. Probably, he too, like a number of later commentators was protective of the honour of the Prophet, and considered the story beneath note.

➢ Al-Tusi, the Shi'i scholar (d. 460/1067), is the first commentator to recognize the danger that this story presents to several dogmatic issues connected with the Prophet. He says:

It is not possible that the Prophet was bewitched like certain ignorant street-preachers (al-qussas al-juhala) say, because one who describes him as bewitched, his mind is confused and God denies this in his Word: 'And the evil-doers say you are just following a bewitched man' (17:47). But it is possible that one of the Jews tried to do this and could not, and God informed his Prophet of what he did so that he took what he had made out of the water[38].

➢ Al-Tabrisi (d. 548/1153) quotes Al-Wahidi's tradition, adding on a direct quote from Al Tusi: "such a thing is not possible where the Prophet is concerned.[39]

➢ Al-Nasafi (d. 701/1301) totally ignored this tradition. However, he does not detail his reasons[40].

➢ Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328), who ignored it altogether in his own commentary[41].

➢ Al-Qummi (d. 1125/1713) repeats the same Shi'i traditions, adding that 'it is not possible that the Jew or his daughters, according to what is related, exerted themselves in this[42].

➢ Modernist Sunni commentators, however, more than make up for this admission by writing extremely negative remarks about the story Al-Qasimi (d. 1333/1914) demonstrates discomfort with this story, in adding a long warning to it in which he enumerates all the reasons why one should reject it[43]. Al-Maraghi also finds it impossible that the Prophet could be assailed in this manner, although he admits that the accounts are well documented according to the fashion of hadith criticism[44] Makhluf ignores the story altogether[45].

Most contemporary commentators are extremely hostile in their comments on the story. For example, Maghiyya (writing c. 1970), after telling the story briefly, says that it must be rejected on both legal and rational grounds, citing Muhammad Abduh[46]. For Muhammad Hijazi (c. 1968), the whole episode was one made up by the Jews so that people would doubt the Prophet[47].

The fundamentalist Sayyid Qutb (d. 1386/1966) rejects it with increasing contempt, saying: These transmissions are in opposition to the basis of prophetic infallibility in action and in proclamation [of the divine message], and are not compatible with the belief that every action of his [the Prophet's] actions, and every utterance of his utterances is Sunna and Sharia, just like it conflicts with the denial of the Qur'an that the Messenger is bewitched[48].

In addition, the Jews are said to have envied the Prophet's sexual powers: The Prophet was given the power of sixty some youths [for sexual intercourse] and thus the Jews envied him, and God most high said: 

'Do people envy on the basis of what God has given them from His bounty?' [Qur'an 4; 54] ... the Messenger of God was given the power of forty in sexual intercourse.[49]

➢The Jews' bewitching the Prophet and causing his impotence results directly from their sexual envy.

⇰ Conclusion: 

1)The Surah is universally accepted as Meccan but the narration here referred to as the reason for revelation of the fore mentioned Surah is Madenian. Hence there is no connection between the two.

2) The verses in the Surah mentions "protection from the women who bewitches." But there is no mention of any other women in this story except the wives of the Prophet. (Later sources introduce the daughters of Labid bin Assam to get the story in line with the revelation).

3) The Prophet was not affected by any magic. Its a concocted narration because it goes against many verses of Quran where Allah has promised explicitly to protect His Messenger from Evil and has also promised failure of Magicians. The Mutazilites were correct in their approach towards this tradition which was later adopted by many Hanafi Maturidi and Shiite Mutazila scholars and also by the traditionalist Ibn Taymiyya.

[1] The Book of Medicine, bab 49–50, no. 5765–66 (Al-Bukhari 1997, 364–366).

[2] His 'conversion' is described in Muhammad bin Sa'd, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-kubra, ed. Muhammad 'Abd al-Qadir "Ata" (Beirut 1990), II, 152. Here the Jews claim that they have already tried to bewitch the Prophet several times, but were unable to do so.

[3] Ibn Manzur, Mukhtasar Ta'rikh Madinat Dimashq, ed. Ruhiyya Nahhas (Beirut 1989), VI, 51 [this section is apparently very abridged in the original of Ibn 'Asakir and could not be traced further there]; only one of the connecting personalities between Labid and the Mu'tazila could be traced (Labid to Talut to Aban bin Sim'an to Ja'd bin Dirham, about whom Ibn Hajar, Lisan Al-mizan [Beirut 1987], II, 133-4 [no. 1948].

[4] A. Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur'an (Leyden 1938), introduction; and see EP (Leyden I960-) s.v. 'Kur'an' (A. Welch), section 3b 'Variant Readings'.

[5] See A. Rippin, 'Qur'an 78/24: A Study in Arabic Lexicography', Journal of Semitic Studies 28 (1983), 315-20 where he discusses the difficulties of the root gh-s-q; and also William Worrell, 'The Case of Muhammad', Journal of the American Oriental Society 48 (1928), 136-46.

[6] As usual, the most cogent grammatical explanation is in al-Zamakhshari, al- Kashshaf 'an haqa'iq Al-Tanzil (Beirut n.d.), IV, 820-22.

[7] Muqatil bin Sulayman, Tafsir, ed. Mahmud Shihata (Cairo 1983), IV, 923-4. Another early source describes him as a member of Banu Qurayza: Ahmad bin Yusuf Al-Baladhuri, Ansab Al-Ashraf, ed. Muhammad Hamidullah (Cairo 1959), I, 285.

[8] Sahl bin 'Abdallah Al-Tustari, Tafsir Al-Qur'an Al-'Azim (Cairo n.d.), 131.

[9] Yahya bin Ziyad Al-Farra', Ma'ani Al -Qur'an (Cairo 1970), III, 301.

[10] Al-Bukhari, Sahih (Beirut n.d.), IV, 20-21; and see the commentaries in Ibn Hajar Al-'Asqalani (d. 852/1448-9), Fath Al-Bari fi sharah Sahih Al-Bukhari (Beirut n.d.), X, 221-2, 226-332; Mahmud bin Ahmad Al-'Ayni (d. 855/1451-2), 'Umdat Al-Qari (Beirut n.d.), XXI, 279-82; and Ahmad bin Muhammad Al-Qastalanl (d. 923/1517), Irshad Al-Sari (Baghdad n.d.), VIII, 404-8; and for a good selection of the traditions: Marwiyyat Al-Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal fi Al-Tafsir (Riyad 1994), IV,

424-5; and Abu Ya'la, Musnad (Damascus 1985), VIII, 290-1.

[11] Lecker, 'Bewitching of the Prophet', 563.

[12] Al-Bayhaqi, Dala'il Al-Nubuwwa, ed. 'Abd al-Muti Qa'laji (Beirut 1985), VI, 248; VII, 92-4; and see also Al-Salihi Al-Shaml, Subul Al-hudd wa-l-rashdd, III, 410-15; X, 56-7.

[13] For the process here: T.M. Johnstone, 'Knots and Curses', Arabian Studies 3 (1970), 79-84; and see Al-Dhahabi, Siyar A'lam Al-Nubala, V, 349 where the nightly practice of the Prophet is describes in this regard.

[14] Al-Furat bin Ibrahim Al-Kufi, Tafsir, ed. Muhammad Al-Kazim (Tehran 1990), 619-20; and Muhammad al-Baqir al-Majlisi, Bihar Al-Anwar (Beirut 1983), XVII, 366-7.

[15] Muqatil, Tafsir, I, 127.

[16] Nasr bin Muhammad Al-Samarqandi, Tafsir (Bahr al-'Ulum), ed. Muhammad Mu'awwad (Beirut 1993), III, 526-7; and other versions of this simply say "ukhida 'an al-nisa".. meaning he was taken from the women',  Ibn Sa'd, Tabaqat, II, 153.

[17] Ali bin Habib Al-Mawardi, Tafsir, ed. Khidr Muhammad Khidr (Kuwait 1982), IV, 550-51; and see also 'Izz al-Din 'Abd al-'Aziz 'Abd al-Salam al-Sulaymi al- Dimashqi (d. 660/1261-2), Mukhtasar tafsir al-Mawardi (Beirut 1996), III, 509-11.

[18] Ali bin Ahmad Al-Wahidi, Asbab Al-Nuzul (Beirut 1988), 310; and see Al-Hindi, Kanz, VI, 742-43 (no 17651). In Ibn Sa'd, Tabaqat, II, 151; and Abu Ya'la, Musnad, VIII, 290-91 it says that he was bewitched such that 'he would imagine for himself that he had done things, while having not done them'. See also Al-Humaydi, Musnad (Medina n.d.), I, 125-7, no 259); Al-Bayhaqli, Dala'il, VII, 88; and Al-Salihi al-Shami, Subul al-hudd, X, 57, where only a man from the Ansar (not even specifying that he is Jewish) is mentioned.

[19] Al-Husayn bin Mas'ud Al-Baghawi, Tafsir (Ma'alim al-Tanzil), ed. Muhammad Abdallah al-Nimr (Riyad 1992), VIII, 593-4.

[20] Al-Hasan bin Muhammad Al-Qummi Al-Naysaburi, Tafsir ghara'ib al-Qur'an (Beirut 1996), VI, 598-9, 601.

[21] Abu Al-Faraj bin Al-Jawzi, Zad Al-Masir fi 'Ilm Al-tafsir, ed. Muhammad 'Abd Al-Qadir 'Ata (Beirut 1990), VIII, 332-3.

[22] Muhammad bin Abdallah bin Al-'Arabi, Ahkam Al-Qur'an, ed. 'Ali Muhammad Al-Bijawi (Beirut n.d.), IV, 1996.

[23] Fakhr Al-Din Al-Razi, Mafatih Al-ghayb (Al-Tafsir al-kabir) (Beirut n.d.) XXXII, 189-96. (The introduction of Labid's daughters appears outside the exegetical field much earlier. Ibn Sa'd, Tabaqat, II, 152; and Lecker, 'Bewitching', 563).

[24] Muhammad bin Ahmad Al-Qurtubi, Tafsir (Al-Jami' li-l-Ahkam Al-Qur'an) (Cairo n.d.), VIII, 7343-4.

[25] Ibid., 7349.

[26] Ibn Kathir, Tafsir (Beirut 1970), VII, 420-21.

[27] Ibn Taymiyya, Al-Tafsir Al-kabir (Beirut 1988), VII, 591-3.

[28] Abu Mansur Muhammad bin Muhammad al-Māturidī al-Samarqandi, “Ta’wilaatu Ahli Sunnah”, (Massasah al-Risalah, Beirut, Lebanon, 2004), Volume 3, page 162, and Volume 5, pages 543, 545.

[29] Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Ali al-Razi al-Jassas, “Ahkam al-Quran”, (Darul Ihya turath al-Arabi, Beirut, Lebanon, 1992), Volume 1, p. 60.

[30] Ibn ‘Umar Al-Zamaksharī, Al-Kashāf ‘an Haqā’iq al-Tanzīl wa ‘uyūn Al-’Aqāwīl fi wujūh al-Tā’wīl (Beirut: Dār Sadr, 2010), volume 4, pp. 1834-1835.

[31] Abū Bakr al-‘Asamm, Tafsīr Abī Bakr al-‘Asamm (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-’ilmiyyah, 2007), p. 267. The same exegesis of this surah was also attributed to the later Mu'tazilite Abū Muslim Isfahanī (332 AH), it is unclear to me at the moment if he adopted Al-‘Asamm’s exegesis or that it was falsely attributed to Al-‘Asamm.

[32] Abū Mansūr al-Māturīdī, Tā’wīlāt ‘Ahl al-Sunna (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 2005), volume 10, p. 653. According to traditions 5430, 5432, 5433 and 6082 in the collection of Bukhārī, the Prophet was bewitched by the Jew Labīd ibn al-A'sam which made him feel ill and forgetful until Gabriel or two angels explained the problem and revealed this sūrah to protect him against the black magic. See also: al-Wāhidī al-Naysābūrī (468 AH), 'Asbāb al-Nuzūl al-Qur'ān (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-'ilmiyyah, 2008), pp. 301-302.

[33] Al-Qādī Abī al-Hasan ‘Abd al-Jabbār bin Ahmad Al-‘Asdābādī, Tafsīr al-Qādī ‘Abd al-Jabbār al-Mu’tazilī (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 2009), pp. 366-367.

[34] Muhammad Salīh Farfūr, The Beneficial Message & The Definitive Proof In The Study Of Theology (al-Risālah al-Nafi'ah wal-Hujjat al-Qati'at fī 'ilm al-Tawhīd) (translated by Wesam Charkawi, London: Azhar Academy, 2010), pp. 197-202. See also his discussion on sihr: Abū Bakr Ahmad 'Alī al-Rāzī al-Jassās, Kitab Ahkām al-Qur'ān (Beirut: Dâr al-Kitāb al-'Arabī, n.dt.), volume 1, pp. 41-58, chapter Bāb al-Sihr wa Hukm al-Sāhir. For the discussion on al-Jassās being a Mu'tazilite or Māturīdī, see Anvar M. Emon at xx below, pp. 45-46.

[35] Al-Qushayri, Lata'if Al-isharat, ed. Ibrahim Bassayuni (Cairo 1971), VI,

353-4.

[36] Hud bin Muhkam al-Hawwari, Tafsir kitab Allah Al-'Aziz (Beirut 1990), IV, 544.

[37] Al-Tabari, Jami Al-bayan 'an ta'wil Al-Qur'an (n.p., n.d.), XXX, 198-202.

His discussion is mostly linguistic.

[38] Muhammad in Al-Hasan Al-Tusi, Tafsir Al-tibyan, ed. Agha Bozorg Khan

(Najaf, 1957-65), X, 434.

[39] Al-Fadl bin Al-Hasan Al-Tabrisi, Majma' al-bayan (Beirut 1954), XXX, 234-5.

[40] Abdallah bin Ahmad Al-Nasafi, Tafsir Al-Qur'an al-Jalil (Tafsir al-Nasafi) (Beirut n.d.), V, 412.

[41] Ibn Taymiyya, Al-Tafsir Al-kabir (Beirut 1988), VII, 591-3

[42] Al-Mirza Muhammad Al-Mashhadi al-Qummi, Tafsir kanz al-daqa'iq (Qummi.d.), XI, 636-7.

[43] Muhammad Jamal al-Din al-Qasimi, Mahasin al-ta'wil, ed. Muhammad Fu'ad 'Abd al-Baqi (Cairo n.d.), XVII, 6308-10; see also Muhammad 'Abduh's attitude in al-Manar 12 (1909-10), 697.

[44] Ahmad Mustafa Al-Maraghi, Tafsir Al-Maraghi (Cairo 1936), XXX, 261.

[45] Husayn Muhammad Makhluf, Safwat al-bayan li-ma'ani al-Qur'an (Beitut n.d.), II, 579-80; and so does Muhammad 'Ali al-Bazwari, al-Ghayb wa-l-shahada (Beirut 1987), VI, 416.

[46] Muhammad Jawad Maghiyya, al-Tafsir al-Kashif (Beirut 1970), VII, 625-6.

[47] Muhammad Mahmud Hijazi, Tafsir Al-wadih (Cairo 1968), XXX, 97.

[48] Sayyid Qutb, Fi zilal Al-Qur'an (Beirut 1974), VI, 4006- 9, at 4008.

[49] Al-Salihi Al-Shami, Subul al-hudd, IX, 73 .

→ References: [1] The Prophet Muhammad, Labid Al Yahudi and the commentaries to Surah 113 by David cook, University of Chicago.

[2] The denial of supernatural sorcery in classical and modern Sunni tafsīr of sūrah al-Falaq (113:4): a reflection on underlying constructions by Shaykh Arnold Yasin Mol.

[3] Black Magic and The Perfection of The Prophet by Shaykh Atabek Shukrov and Shaykh Sulaiman Ahmed.