The Matter of the Gate of Khaybar

Author: Ibn al-Hasan Muhammadi

The courage and bravery of Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) can only be denied by a disbeliever. Allah Almighty granted him great strength, and he was undoubtedly the Lion of Allah. A true hero does not need any false virtues or accolades; however, people have always had a tendency to spread false stories about their favored personalities. Often, these stories distort the image of the person rather than enhancing their character in the minds of people.

One such story commonly associated with Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) is the claim that he single-handedly lifted and threw the gate of Khaybar, which many people together could not move. This account is not only unsubstantiated and unreliable, but it also suggests an almost supernatural perception of Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him).

There are four narrations on this matter: three in the books of Ahl al-Sunnah and one in the books of the Rawafidh (Shia). Let us critically examine each of them in light of the principles of the Hadith scholars.

Narration 1​

Attributed to Sayyiduna Abu Rafi, the servant of the Prophet (peace be upon him):

Translation:

"We went with Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) when the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) sent him with his banner. When he approached the fort, its inhabitants came out to fight him. A Jew struck him, causing his shield to fall from his hand. Ali then took hold of a door near the fort and used it as a shield. It remained in his hand while he fought until Allah granted him victory. After the battle, he threw the door aside. I saw myself among seven others, the eighth of whom I was, struggling to turn that door, but we could not move it."

References:

Musnad Ahmad (8/6), Dala'il al-Nubuwwah al-Bayhaqi (4/212), Sirah Ibn Hisham (6/349-350), Tarikh Dimashq Ibn Asakir (42/111).

Commentary:

The chain of this narration is weak because it includes some ambiguous and unknown individuals. Islamic law does not permit the acceptance of religious information from unknown sources.

Hafiz al-Haythami states:

"It was narrated by Ahmad, and it includes a narrator whose name is not mentioned."

Reference:

Majma' al-Zawa'id (6/152).

In the chain of Dala'il al-Nubuwwah, the link of Abdullah bin Hassan is missing, hence:

Hafiz Ibn Kathircomments:

"This narration has ambiguity and clear disconnection."

Reference: Al-Bidaya wa'l-Nihaya (4/191).

Narration 2​

Attributed to Sayyiduna Jabir bin Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him):

Translation:

"Indeed, Ali carried the door on the day of Khaybar until the Muslims climbed over it and conquered it. It was tested, and only forty men were able to lift it."

References:

Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (12/84), Tarikh Baghdad al-Khatib (1/324), Tarikh Dimashq Ibn Asakir (42/111).

Commentary:

The chain of this narration is weak because it includes Layth bin Abi Sulaym, who is considered weak by the majority of Hadith scholars due to his poor memory.

Hafiz al-'Iraqi writes:

"The majority weakened him."

Reference:

Al-Mughni 'an Haml al-Asfar (2/187), Takhrij Ahadith al-Ihya lil-Haddad (1648).

Hafiz al-Haythami states:

"Most scholars have declared him weak."

Reference:

Majma' al-Zawa'id (2/178).

Hafiz al-Nawawi writes:

"The majority of scholars have declared him weak."

References:

Sharh Muqaddimat Sahih Muslim (4, 52).

Hafiz Ibn Hajar states:

"To my knowledge, no one has explicitly declared him trustworthy."

Reference:

Zawa'id Musnad al-Bazzar (2/403).

Hafiz al-Dhahabi classified this narration as "rejected" (Munkar).

Reference:

Mizan al-I'tidal (3/113).

Ibn Kathir notes:

"It also has weaknesses."

Reference:

Al-Bidaya wa'l-Nihaya (4/191).

Narration 3​

Attributed again to Sayyiduna Jabir bin Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him):

Translation:

"When Ali reached the fort, he uprooted one of its doors and threw it on the ground. After him, seventy men gathered to return the door to its place, but their combined efforts could barely move it."

References:

Dala'il al-Nubuwwah al-Bayhaqi (4/212), Al-Maqasid al-Hasanah al-Sakhawi (313).

Commentary:

The chain of this narration is extremely weak because it includes Haram bin Uthman, who is a severely weak and discredited narrator.

Hafiz al-Dhahabi mentions about him:

"He is agreed upon to be abandoned and an innovator."

Reference:

Diwan al-Du'afa (859).

Even Imam al-Bayhaqi classified it as weak, and Hafiz Ibn Kathir also considered it weak.

Reference:

Al-Bidaya wa'l-Nihaya (4/191).

Narration 4​

Attributed to Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (may Allah have mercy on him), who narrated from his ancestors that Amir al-Mu'minin, Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), wrote a letter to Sahl bin Hunayf:

Translation:

"By Allah, I did not uproot the gate of Khaybar and throw it forty cubits behind me due to physical strength or the power of food, but by a spiritual, divine force illuminated by the light of my Lord. I am to Ahmad (the Prophet) as light is to light."

Reference:

Bihar al-Anwar al-Majlisi al-Rafidi (21/26).

Commentary:

This narration is a fabrication because:

1. Imam Ja'far’s ancestors are unknown and ambiguous.
2. Muhammad bin Muhsin al-Asadi al-Ukashi is unanimously regarded by Hadith scholars as unreliable, a "denier of Hadith", "abandoned", a "liar", and a "fabricator".
3. Yunus bin Zubyan's biographical details are not found in Sunni books, and even in Shia books of narrators, there is criticism of him.
4. Ali bin Ahmad bin Musa bin Imran Daqaq is not authenticated in any Sunni or Shia books of narrators.
5. Muhammad bin Harun al-Madani is also unknown.
6. Abu Bakr Ubaydullah bin Musa Khabbaz Habal al-Tabari is unknown according to both Sunni and Shia books of narrators.

Egyptian historian, Al-Maqrizi (d. 845 AH) writes:

"Some say that there is no basis for the story of Ali carrying the gate of Khaybar."

Reference:

Imta' al-Asma' (1/310).

Al-Sakhawi (831-902 AH) writes:

"All these narrations are weak; hence, some scholars have rejected this story."

Reference:

Al-Maqasid al-Hasanah (313).

Conclusion:

This incident is not proven by authentic chains. True virtue is that which is established through reliable sources.