Did any one of the Companions revert from Islam?
Did any one of the Companions revert from Islam?
Dr. Sa`d ibn `Abdullah Al Humayyid
Praise be to Allah alone and peace be upon the last Prophet. To proceed:
It is not true that any of the Prophet's Companions apostatized after the event of the Night Journey. That was not mentioned expressly except in a Hadith Munkar (rejected Hadith reported by a weak narrator whose narration conflicts with an authentic Hadith) reported by Al Hakim (62\3 and 63) and another one from the way of Muhammad ibn Kathir Al San`any from Ma`mar ibn Rashid from Ibn Shihab Az-Zuhry from `Urwah on the authority of `Aisha that she said: When the Prophet (peace be upon him) was taken to Al Aqsa Mosque, people have spoken about that and some people who believed in him have apostatized. Al Hakim said: ( This is an authentic Hadith according to the conditions of Al Bukhari and Muslim who did not report it. Verily, Muhammad ibn Kathir is truthful).As it is known, Al Hakim criticized many comments on the Hadiths in his book "Al Mustadrak" and and criticism is obvious here. Al Bukhari and Muslim did not report any Hadithfrom Muhammad ibn Kathir. However, he has a weak memory, so he is a bad memorizer and his narrations become so weak when he narrates from Mu`ammar. `Abdullah, the son of Imam Ahmad, said: The name of Muhammad ibn Kathir was mentioned to my father and he said about him: a bad memorizer. He also sentenced his narrations from Mu`ammar to be so weak. He said: His Hadiths are Munkar (rejected Hadith reported by a weak narrator whose narration conflicts with an authentic Hadith). My father added: Muhammad reports strange narrations."Tahdhib Al Kamal" ( 26/331) . The correct judge on this Hadith is: the narration of Ibn Jarir in his exegesis (17/335) from Ibn Shihab Az-Zuhry, from Ibn Al Musayyab and Abu Salamah ibn `Abdur-Rahman without a complete chain of narration. Al Hadith Al Mursal (incompletely transmitted Hadith) is a type of the weak Hadiths. In spite of that, apostasy was not reported from either narrations but `Abdullah ibn Wahb said it out of his mere opinion. Ibn Wahb is the narrator of this Hadith from Yunus ibn Yazid from Az-Zuhry.
If it is said: Apostasy was also reported in the Hadith of Ibn `Abbas which is recorded by Imam Ahmad (1/374 No. 3546), Al Nasa'y in "As-Sunan Al Kubra" and others. Ibn Jarir At-Tabary recorded it as authentic in "Tahdhib Al Athar" (17) and Ibn Kathir in "At-Tafsir" (5/26). The answer is: The Hadith does not denote that they were believers and its wordings according to such people is: Some people said: we do not believe in what Muhammad is sayinh, so they reverted as disbelievers, thus, their heads were cut along with the head of Abu Jahl. His saying that they reverted as disbelievers does not denote that they were believers but it denotes that they wanted to challenge the Prophet (peace be upon him), after they had seen that amazing sign, to describe Baytul-Maqdis "Juresalem". The Messenger (peace be upon him) began to describe Baytul-Maqdis precisely although they know that he did not see it. He told them about their caravan which was on the way to Makkah. That sign demands that the infidels of Makkah should believe in the truthfulness of the Messenger's prophethood but they said: We do not believe in what Muhammad is saying. So, instead of having firm belief they reverted to their unbelief. The other narrations which have mentioned that event from other ways indicated what I have just mentioned. Those narrations do not have any reference to apostasy, not to mention the declaration that some Companions have apostatized. The Hadith chain of narration needs deep thinking which was understood from the saying of Ibn Jarir At-Tabary in the previous position in "Tahdhib Al Athar" : " In my opinion, it is an authentic chain of narration but according to others, it seems to be ill-founded because of the following: First, this narration was only reported by Ibn `Abbas from Hilal ibn Khabbab from `Ikrimah and there is no other narrations reported from that way, even though, the Hadith was reported from `Ikrimah without Hilal ibn Khabbab. The most important thing is that he refuted the narration of Hilal ibn Khabbab from `Ikrimah, from Ibn `Abbas. The Hadiths of Isra' (the Night Journey) was reported by a group of theCompanions (may Allah be pleased with them) whom Al Hafizh Ibn Kathir mentioned in his explanation of Surat Al Isra' including Ibn `Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him). None of the Companions mentioned the issue of apostasy except the Hadith which was reported from the way of `Aishah or in this narration. The Hadith of Ibn `Abbas was narrated from five ways, as Ibn Kathir mentioned and some of those narrations were mentioned in the Two Sahihs, and they did not mention anything about apostasy except in the narration of `Ikrimah. This narration was not reported from `Ikrimah except from the way of Hilal ibn Khabbab and the students of `Ikrimah who reported his narrations are many. No one of them has reported the narration of Hilal ibn Khabbab although they accompanied `Ikrimah more than Hilal and their Hadiths are recorded in the Sahih. As for Hilal ibn Khabbab, Al Bukhari and Muslim did not mention his Hadith in their books because his mental condition has changed before his death due to his old age. Such a person cannot report that narration without supporting it by another narration.
This is the defect of the chain of narration but as for the Text, it is rejected for the following reasons:
(1) The Hadith of Abu Sufyan with Heraclius which included the question of Heraclius to Abu Sufyan, who was an infidel at that time, does any of thoseCompanionsrevertfromIslam? Abu Sufyan said: No. So, if the event of apostasy had been true, Abu Sufyan would not have admitted that. He would have said: Yes, some of them reverted from belief when such and such happened.
(2) There are some rejected wordings in this Hadith from this way of narration to prove its invalidity such as: "He saw the Antichrist in reality and not in dream and mentioned his description."
If the Prophet saw him that night, he would not have confused him with Ibn Sayyad after he had migrated to Madinah. He knew him after he had seen him in reality, especially the clear signs which were mentioned in the Hadith. Of which, his saying: "I saw him with nice face and one of his eyes was brightening like a star and his hair was like the tree branches. Some of these descriptions were not in Ibn Sayyad such as the description of the eye. His eye was sound and healthy in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and later on it was gouged out as indicated in the Hadith of Ibn `Umar in Sahih Muslim (2932).
(3) The Companions at the time of accident of Isra' were few and their names and the names of their fathers were quite known. Moreover, they have preserved for us all the accidents that took place at that period. Thus, the news of their embrace to Islam, their torture, their first and second migration to Abyssinia and those who died and whom were born. So, it is unbelievable that the news of apostasy does not reach us and the names of those apostates were not conveyed to us. No single name, by either authentic or unauthentic way, was mentioned as one of those who reverted after the event of Isra'. Such information can not be neglected while other minor events were reported.
(4) Every believer in the Message of Muhammad believes that Gabriel descendsfrom Heaven with revelation to Muhammad (peace be upon him) in a moment. So, how it is impossible that the Prophet was taken to Bayt Al Maqdis (Palestine) in one night. Such meaning was reported from Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) when he argued the polytheists. He said to them: I believe him in major events such as receiving revelation from heaven in a moment. from what have been mentioned earlier, we know that the event was not true and because it became widespread, we elaborated on the matter to explain the truth and Allah knows best.
