The events unfolded as follows. When the Quraysh saw that, despite all these hardships upon the Muslims, Islam was spreading and their numbers were increasing day by day, and that those who had emigrated to Abyssinia to escape these conditions had been given refuge by the king of Abyssinia, they came together and decided to besiege the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and his family, reduce them to hunger and destitution, and thereby destroy them.
Accordingly, all the tribes drew up a pact that no person would intermarry with the family of Banu Hashim, nor would they buy or sell anything with them, nor meet them, nor allow any food or provisions to reach them. This pact was drawn up in the seventh year of prophethood, in the month of Muharram. Mansur ibn Ikrimah wrote out this pact and hung it up on the door of the Ka’bah.
Abu Talib, compelled, took all the clan of Banu Hashim into that ravine and they took refuge there, and Banu Hashim spent three years under this siege. The times were so harsh that they used to get by eating leaves, to the point that they ate the leaves of the acacia tree. The narrations from the Companions which mention that “we used to subsist on the leaves of talh (acacia)” refer to this same period. The statement of Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, may Allah be pleased with him, that “from eating the leaves our lips became like the lips of a camel, and when we relieved ourselves, what came out was like camel dung; one night I found a dried piece of leather, I washed it with water, roasted it on the fire, and ate it mixed with water” — all these are circumstances of that very era. Indeed, all those who had embraced Islam shared in this boycott.
It should also be kept in mind that at the time this boycott of Banu Hashim was imposed, the descendants of two of Hashim’s brothers (Hashim’s father being Abd Manaf) — namely Banu Nawfal and Banu Muttalib — supported the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, while the descendants of the other three brothers did not support him. For this reason, the Prophet ﷺ used to give wealth from the spoils (fay’) to Banu Muttalib and Banu Nawfal. When Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, who was from the descendants of Abd Shams, the fourth brother of Hashim, asked him why he did not grant them from that wealth as well, the Prophet ﷺ replied that during the boycott, Banu Nawfal and Banu Muttalib had stood with us, but Banu Abd Shams did not stand with us. This incident is mentioned in Sahih Muslim.
In this boycott there was no distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims; rather, the boycott was enforced against the entire clan of Banu Hashim, the clan of Banu Muttalib and the clan of Banu Nawfal, except Abu Lahab. Yet most individuals of those three clans were disbelievers. Since in Arabia one clan could not raise a hand against a member of another clan, lest a chain of warfare begin that would not end for centuries, in this respect every clan of Quraysh feared raising a hand against the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
This is why, in the Meccan period, you will not find anywhere in any history or biography book that such-and-such hardships were inflicted upon Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, for the sake of Islam, or that he endured such-and-such suffering for Islam. Because he had the backing of the clan of Banu Hashim, no one could lay a hand on him. Had the Messenger ﷺ truly received the support of Abu Talib and Banu Hashim, no injustice could ever have been done to him either.
Ibn Sa’d has narrated that when the children cried from hunger, their voices would be heard outside that ravine, and the Quraysh would be delighted to hear it; yet some compassionate people also felt pity. The Prophet ﷺ also had young daughters (namely Fatimah and Umm Kulthum). One day Hakim ibn Hizam, may Allah be pleased with him, who was a nephew of Khadijah, may Allah be pleased with her, sent some wheat to her by his slave; on the way Abu Jahl saw it and wanted to snatch it away. By chance Abu al-Bakhtari came along; although he was a disbeliever, he felt pity, and he said: “A man is sending something to his aunt, so why do you prevent him?”
How the Boycott Ended
This is the background of that boycott. Now the question arises: how did this boycott finally end? The account given for its ending, as narrated by Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d, al-Bayhaqi and Abu Nu’aym, is as follows:
When the Quraysh boycotted the Banu Hashim and confined them to Shi’b Bani Hashim, and having drawn up a mutual agreement in written form, hung it at the Ka’bah, then after a few years Allah sent termites, which ate the paper.
In one narration it is stated that the termites ate the rest of the text, in which the covenant of boycotting the Banu Hashim was written, leaving only the name of Allah.
In another narration it is stated that the termites ate the name of Allah and left the rest of the text.
Allah informed the Prophet ﷺ of this. The Prophet ﷺ mentioned it to Abu Talib. Abu Talib informed the Quraysh of it. And finally it was decided that whether the agreement would remain or be annulled would depend on whether this report was false or true. When the disbelievers took down the paper and looked at it, the saying of the Prophet ﷺ was confirmed.
Takhrij al-Hadith:
Sayyid Sulayman Nadwi (may Allah have mercy on him) refutes this, writing:
Ibn Ishaq’s narration is without a chain (sanad).
All the remaining narrations are related from al-Waqidi or Ibn Lahi’ah, whose reports are not reliable.
And those related from trustworthy narrators are entirely mursal. Among all these narrations, if there is any better one, it is that in al-Bayhaqi from Musa ibn Uqbah, who narrates it from Imam al-Zuhri, but it stops at al-Zuhri and does not reach any Companion.
Al-Zuhri is undoubtedly an accepted imam, but his narration can be accepted only when he mentions the chain above it, because he is a junior Tabi’i and narrates from senior Tabi’un. Thus two narrators above are missing, and when two narrators are missing at once, the muhaddithun call such a narration mu’dal, which is regarded as the worst kind of weak narration. And al-Zuhri’s mursal reports are also not acceptable.
Imam al-Tirmidhi, in Kitab al-‘Ilal, quotes the statement of Imam Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan, who said:
ان مرسلات يحي بن ابي كثير ليس بشيء وهكذا مرسلات الزهري و سفيان بن عينية.
“The mursal reports of Yahya ibn Abi Kathir are worth nothing; likewise the mursal reports of al-Zuhri and Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah.”
We have already presented the condition of Muhammad ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi. Now let us look at the condition of Ibn Lahi’ah as well, since he has great fame among the muhaddithun.
Ibn Lahi’ah:
His name is Abdullah. His kunya is Abu Abd al-Rahman. He was a scholar of Egypt and also served as its judge. He is from the followers of the followers (tabaʿ tabiʿin). His narrations are found in Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah, although al-Tirmidhi himself called him weak.
Yahya ibn Ma’in said:
“He is weak, not fit to be a proof.”
Al-Humayri reports that “Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan did not consider him anything.”
Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi said: “I do not take narrations from him. The reason is that he sent me some of his narrations in writing, in which he stated that he had heard these narrations from Amr ibn Shu’ayb. But when I read these narrations to Imam Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, he went inside the house and brought out a copy of Ibn Lahi’ah’s book. In that book, it was written regarding all these narrations that Ibn Lahi’ah had heard them from Ishaq ibn Abi Farwah, who is an unreliable narrator. Ibn Lahi’ah changed Ishaq’s name and attributed these narrations to Amr ibn Shu’ayb.”
(To conceal his lie, he came up with the excuse that a fire broke out in his house, by which all his manuscripts burned, so that he now forgets the narrations.)
Yahya ibn Bukayr reports that a fire broke out in his house in 170 AH, by which his manuscripts burned. But Uthman ibn Salih said that no manuscript had burned; rather, it was only that he had copied some sections separately in that manuscript and used to narrate to people from them. A part of that copy burned.
Uthman ibn Salih also said: “I know the beginning of his illness. One day, I and Uthman ibn Atiq were coming back after offering Friday prayer. Ibn Lahi’ah was riding a donkey ahead of us when suddenly he was struck by paralysis and fell down from the donkey. Uthman ibn Atiq immediately went forward, helped him sit up, and then we accompanied him back to his house. This was the real cause of his illness.”
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal said:
“He would write hadiths from Muthanna ibn al-Sabah and attribute them to Amr ibn Shu’ayb.”
Yahya ibn Ma’in said:
“He is not strong; once he said he is weak.”
Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan said:
Bishr ibn al-Sari instructed me: “If you meet Ibn Lahi’ah, do not take any narration from him.”
Yahya ibn Ma’in said:
“He was weak before those books burned and he is weak after they burned.”
Abu Zur’ah al-Razi said:
“His early and late narrations are all equal.”
However, when Ibn al-Mubarak and Ibn Wahb narrate from him, they narrate after scrutinising.
Al-Nasa’i said he is weak, and he also said that he did not include any of his narrations in his Sunan except one narration, which mentions two prostrations in Surah al-Hajj.
Ibn Abi Maryam, may Allah be pleased with both of them, reports that in the final part of his life he went to him, and a group of Berbers was reading hadiths from him, and he was narrating to them hadiths of Mansur, al-A’mash and the scholars of Iraq. I asked him: “What is your connection to the hadiths of the people of Iraq? You are a resident of Egypt. How did you come to know the hadiths of the people of Iraq?” He said that these hadiths had fallen into his ears while he was walking along the road. (That is, he began narrating them without verification.)
Abu Zur’ah and Abu Hatim said:
“His matter is troubling, but his narrations may be written as corroboration (shahid).”
Al-Jowzajani reports:
“There is no light in his hadith; he is not fit to be a proof.”
Imam Ahmad said: “The hadith of Ibn Lahi’ah is not a proof. But I write his narrations so that perhaps some authentic hadith may be supported by his narrations.”
Imam al-Dhahabi said:
“The caliph Mansur appointed him as judge of Egypt in 155 AH and fixed a stipend of thirty dinars per month for him. He held this post for nine months.”
Abu al-Aswad al-Nadr reports that:
“He issued very few judgements in accordance with the hadiths that the scholars of Egypt used to narrate.”
Imam Ibn Hibban presents a brief review of his life in these words:
“Ibn Lahi’ah was born in 96 AH. He died in 174 AH. By nature he was a righteous man, but he would narrate from weak narrators and drop their names from the chain in between. Then his books burned. For this reason, some scholars say that those who narrated from him in the beginning are reliable, and they are four persons: Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, Abdullah ibn Wahb, Abdullah ibn Yazid al-Muqri and Abdullah ibn Maslamah al-Qa’nabi. Whatever they narrate from him will be acceptable, otherwise not.”
All his narrations in the final part of his life are baseless. He would narrate fabricated (mawdu’) reports from weak narrators and attribute them to reliable narrators.
Bukhari, in Kitab al-Du’afa, declared him weak and his narration munkar.
To expose the reality of his condition, we present one of his narrations here.
He narrated from Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As, may Allah be pleased with them, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said during his final illness: “Call my brother to me.” People called Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, and he turned his face away from him. Then he said: “Call my brother.” Then Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, was called, and he (ﷺ) covered him with his garment. When Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, came out from his presence, people asked him what the Messenger of Allah ﷺ had said to him. He said: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ taught me a thousand doors of knowledge, and each door had a thousand doors.”
Tahqiq al-Hadith:
Imam Ibn ‘Adi says in al-Kamil:
This narration is fabricated by this same Ibn Lahi’ah, because he was an extreme Shi’i.
Now the question arises: how did this boycott end? There must have been some cause for it. Indeed, causes did arise, but they were all worldly causes; they were not supernatural or heavenly causes. Now listen to the account of these causes in the words of Allamah Shibli:
For three consecutive years, the Holy Prophet ﷺ and the entire family of Hashim endured these hardships. Eventually, mercy came to the enemies themselves, and the movement to break this agreement arose from among them. Hisham ‘Amiri, who was a close relative of the clan of Banu Hashim and was distinguished among his own tribe, used to secretly send grain and other supplies to Banu Hashim. Once he went to Zuhair, who was the grandson of ‘Abd al-Muttalib, and said: “O Zuhair, do you like that you eat, drink, and enjoy every kind of pleasure, while your maternal uncles do not even get a single grain?” Zuhair said: “What can I do? I am alone. If one person would support me, I would tear up this oppressive agreement and throw it away.” Hisham ‘Amiri said: “I am present.” Both of them went to Mut’im bin ‘Adi. Abu al-Bakhtari, Ibn Hisham and Zam’ah bin Aswad also supported them. The next day they all went together to the Haram. Zuhair addressed all the people and said:
“O people of Makkah, is it just that we live in comfort while Banu Hashim do not get food or water? By Allah, I will not rest until this oppressive agreement is torn apart.” Abu Jahl interjected from nearby: “No one can ever lay a hand on this agreement.” Zam’ah said: “You are lying. When it was written, we were not pleased with it even then.” Jubair bin Mut’im (may Allah be pleased with him) reached out his hand and tore the document to pieces. Mut’im bin ‘Adi, ‘Adi bin Qais, Zam’ah bin al-Aswad, Abu al-Bakhtari and Zuhair, and others, all went fully armed to Banu Hashim and brought them out of the valley. According to Ibn Sa’d, this incident took place in the 10th year of prophethood.
This entire account is mentioned in Ibn Hisham, Tabari, Ibn Sa’d and others. A few days after this incident, Hazrat Khadijah (may Allah be pleased with her) passed away, and Abu Talib also died. After this, the event of the Mi’raj took place.
Ishaq al-Kawsaj reports that in our presence Muhammad bin Humayd read out the Kitab al-Maghazi, which he narrates from Ibn Ishaq through Salamah bin al-Abrash. By chance, after this I went to ‘Ali bin Mihran, and I saw him reading Salamah’s Kitab al-Maghazi. I asked ‘Ali bin Mihran: “Did you hear this Maghazi from Muhammad bin Humayd?” He was astonished at this and said: “Ibn Humayd heard this book from me.” That is, Ibn Humayd’s claim that he had narrated Ibn Ishaq’s narrations from Salamah is false. He had heard them from ‘Ali bin Mihran, and ‘Ali bin Mihran had heard them from Salamah. After this reality became known, Ishaq al-Kawsaj said: “I testify that Muhammad bin Humayd is a liar.”
Salih Jazarah said: “We consider this Muhammad bin Humayd a liar in everything. I have not seen anyone with less fear of Allah than this man. He would listen to hadiths and narrations from people and keep altering them.”
Ibn Khirash once narrated a narration of this Muhammad bin Humayd and said: “By Allah, he lies.” Other muhaddithin say that he would take the hadiths of others and attribute them to other people.
Nasa’i says: “He is da’if (weak).” Salih Jazarah said: “In my life I have not seen anyone more skilled in lying than two persons: one is Muhammad bin Humayd the historian, and the other is Ibn al-Shadhakuni.”
Imam Fadlak al-Razi says that when I went to this Muhammad bin Humayd, he was fabricating chains for stories he had heard as tales.
Dhahabi says that his student, the historian Tabari, has written with certainty and accuracy that he did not even know the Qur’an by heart. Among those who narrated from him in his last years, there are two persons: Abu al-Qasim al-Baghawi and Muhammad bin Jarir Tabari. The death of this Ibn Humayd took place in 248 AH.
