Our Beacon Forum

Who Raised the Exalted Messnger [AS]
By:abdalaziz ariff / indiana
Date: Saturday, 20 April 2019, 6:51 pm

Ref: Religious Tales -Facts and Fiction -Allama Habibur Rahman Kandhavi
[Apology for the long post]


The educated class, now a days, raises strongly the question as to who brought up the
PROPHET(S.A). All Authors of SEERAH and HISTORY, Scholars and Sufis, as also those
in the past, have been writing that after the death of ABDUL MUTTALIB the
PROPHET(S.A.) was looked after by his real uncle ABU TAALIB.
It was considered as an established fact, in India, before its partition, that all the
historical tales, were a pad of faith. But when MAHMOOD AHMED ABBASI wrote in
Pakistan, KHILAFAT MOAVIYA-O-YAZEED and challenged SHIAISM, a number of
people having a soft corner for SHIAISM were incited. The late QARI TAYYAB of Deoband
India, wrote a book and proved his love for HUSSAIN(Rd). ALLAMA MODOODI also
projected SHIAISM by writing KHILAFAT-O-MULUKIYAT. He criticized a number of
Companions of the PROPHET(S.A.), with the result that the violent reaction that was heading
towards ABBASI turned towards MODOODI SAHEB. In the wake of this book a number of
Scholarly works came up. A sequence of answer to answer appeared. As a favorable result, it
produced a number of research Scholars in History. Many facts were discovered. In reaction, a
group assailing the person of HADRAT ALI(Rd) also came up. They considered it necessary
to repudiate all events attributed to him suspecting SHIAISM behind them. They were not
against ALI(Rd) but against SHIAISM. Some of them even over-stepped the balanced course.
On the other side, those cherishing a blind faith in these stories supported them, and
declared the non-conformists as KHARJIS (the schismatics). In this conflict some scholars
turned towards KHARJISM and some towards SHIAISM. This divided the Scholars of
DEOBAND INDIA and AHLE HADITH in three groups.
1. Those who consider defense of these stories, a part of their faith, and criticizing AMIR
MOAVIYA etc., their moral duty.
2. Those who do not see any virtue in BANU HASHIM and Companions belonging to
3. Those who take the love of Companions as part of religion and consider all historical
events against them as false. However these scholars stand divided on the question of
the Guardianship of the PROPHET(S.A.). A majority of them harps on a centuries old
theme. Whereas a group advances such convincing logic against them that they take
recourse to religious verdicts. But this affects the common man adversely. These
trends have now been identified with SHIAISM and SUNNI-ISM. Hence, the matter
deserve a dispassionate examination.
HIQIQAT-E-SHIA (the reality of SHIAISM) written by a known Scholar and
exponent of a group, HAKIM FAIZ ALAM SHAHEED SIDDIQUI, argues against the
guardianship of ABU TAALIB as follows:-
"All our current History Books, Scholars, Religious Leaders, the Preachers and Imams,
rather the entire society, except a few, labor under the misunderstanding that after the death
of ABDUL MUTTALIB, ABU TAALIB (whose real name was ABDE MANAF, the
worshipper of MANAF) reared the PROPHET(S.A.). Although this is entirely baseless and
wrong. The fact is that after death of ABDUL MUTTALIB, the PROPHET(S.A.) was
brought up by his elder uncle, ZUBAIR BIN ABDUL MUTTALIB. But the Shite
propaganda has so cleverly tarnished the facts and turned the minds towards elevation of ABU
TAALIB (ABDE MANAF) that (today) even the (big) Scholars (and learned people) are
unaware of the reality".
It can be imagined by this one event how the SHIATE propaganda has corrupted the
facts and affected the minds of the entire society. ALLAH has forgiven YAZEED to which the
PROPHET(S.A.) and hundreds of Companions stand a testimony. But the cobweb of Shite
Propaganda has so enticed the Muslims that they are not prepared to pardon him. Likewise
other matters can also be assessed by this (one) event (of ABU TAALIB).
"Guess from our orchard the spring we had (QAYAS KUN ZAGULISTANE MA
Six sons of ABDUL MUTTALIB were alive when he died, namely ZUBAIR, HARTS,
them, ZUBAIR, ABDULLAH, ABDE MANAF, were from one mother. ZUBAIR was the
eldest. TABQAT IBNE SAAD, says about ZUBAIR:-
1. ZUBAIR was a poet and an outstanding person. ABDUL MUTTALIB had appointed
him, (as) his successor (TABQAT IBNE SAAD P.77 V.1).
2. As for ZUBAIR BIN ABDUL MUTTALIB, he was a respected and noble chief of the
3. The compiler of KITAB-AL-MUHABBAR, one of the earliest historians (ABU
JAFAR MOHAMMAD BIN HABEEB D.245 A.H) has written under the caption, AL
MUTTALIB, ZUBAIR and after him ABU TAALIB became the chiefs of BANU
4. It has been provided in ASHRAAF-E-QURAISH that after HARB BIN OMAIYA on
allocation of offices among the HAASHMITES, the following were appointed seriatim
the chiefs. (i) ZUBAIR (ii) ABU TAALIB (iii) HAMZA and (iv) ABBAS.
The battle of FUJJAAR was fought in 581 A.D., between the tribes of QURESH and
HAWAZIN and ZUBAIR commanded the forces of BANU HAASHIM. The twenty years old
PROPHET(S.A.) joined the forces, but did not participate in the actual battle.
The PROPHET(S.A.) was born in 561 A.D. Thus he was more or less twenty years of age. He
picked up, in the battle, arrows for his uncle ZUBAIR ABU TAALIB has nowhere been
mentioned in this battle. (TAAREEKH-E-ISLAM, AKBAR SHAH KHAN, page 195, ASH
(ZUBAIR was among the young's of QURAISH). Page 126.
6. SHARAH-IBNE-ABI-AL-HADID, mentions that ZUBAIR was a kind hearted and
just person. After quoting several instances where he helped the oppressed in getting
justice, it mentions that once he quarreled with HARB BIN OMAIYA to help an
oppressed person. The matter became so serious that he along with his brother AL69
GEEDAQ went into the KABA. On further aggravation, all of the BANNU
MUTTALIB drew out their swords and came to his help.
7. He was a trader and a rich man of his time.
8. Once some Arabs took an oath, to help the oppressed etc. It remained unmet for years
but people yet remembered it. ZUBAIR BIN ABDUL MUTTALIB revived it after the
baffle of FUJJAR. He collected all the tribal chiefs at the house of ABDULLAH BIN
JUDAAN and got the agreement revived by recalling the event.
The PROPHET(S.A.) was 21 years, at this time. He accompanied his uncle ZUBAIR.
This event is known in history as HALFUL FUZOOL (SHARAH IBNE ABI AL-HADEED,
9. On the death of ZUBAIR, HAZRAT SAFIA wrote a powerful elegy. She says:-
i) Weep on the virtuous ZUBAIR. Weeping on him would leave no regrets for
having not wept on a generous person.
ii) Or regrets for not having mourned a gentle and generous person's death,
thrown away by Earth or regrets for not having mourned one whose death has
denuded and depraved the Earth.
iii) And I was bent upon to leave the dead un mourned.
iv) But how can I forget the death of ZUBAIR. I could not restrain myself on his
death as I found him most generous of all my brothers.
v) Had I not said an elegy on him the flow of tears would have broken my ribs to
Save ZUBAIR, we do not find in history anyone of her brothers for whom HADRAT
SAFIA(Rd) composed an elegy. She was deeply grieved on the death of HAZRAT HAMZA
but did not write an elegy and ABU TAALIB does not stand mentioned at all.
The correct year of death of ZUBAIR is not ascertainable. But it appears that he died a
little after HALF-UL-FUZOOL when PROPHET (S.A.) was not in need of any upbringing.
He was fully grown up, and carried out his business independently. Now look at the other side
of the picture.
i) After the demise of ZUBAIR, ABDE MANAF (ABU TAALIB) was appointed
the tribal chief. His economic condition was very poor.
ii) ABDE MANAF was very poor. He could therefore not observe his family
office properly. His brother ABBAS carried out the function of SAQAYA
(Water Supply) and RIFADA (Announcing) in his place.
iii) QURAISH lived on trade, for which they had to travel towards SYRIA and
YEMEN. In a country like ARABIA, where Dacoity, Plundering and Theft
were the order of the day, only those people could undertake a journey who
were healthy and sound. But ABU TAALIB who was Weak and Lame and
could not undertake the perils and fatigue of a journey, remained poor.
In AL-MA-AARIF, IBNE QUTAIBA has listed the members of various families of
QURAISH who had physical defects. ABU TAALIB appears on the top of the list of the
Lames (AL-MA-AARIF P-225).
iv) Being unable to take long journeys, for his livelihood, he used to do only small
jobs at home. IBNE QUTAIBA says, he used to make and sell scented
materials at home.
v) He lived like this, even when his father was alive. Consequently his name does
not appear any where, when his father ABDUL MUTTALIB or ZUBAIR were
the chiefs of their tribe. He has also not been mentioned in connection with any
important event in the Pre-Islamic era.
It has to be accepted, in view of the insight, understanding, wisdom and grandeur of
ABDUL MUTTALIB, that he would have entrusted the burden of up-bearing the
PROPHET(S.A.) to the son, who helped the poor and the oppressed, who was wise pious,
and chief of the tribe, who was respectable, grand, generous and courageous. He would not
have put the burden of the breeding of his orphan grandson, on the son of ordinary means,
who was invalid, with a large family. A story was invented by the interested people, for this
situation that ABDUL MUTTALIB tossed between his two son, ZUBAIR and ABDE
MANAF, for looking after the PROPHET(S.A.), in which the name of ABDE MANAF came
It is surprising that the person who carved out this story, did not consider the other
five well-to-do sons of ABDUL MUTTALIB, for this tossing. The fact is, that ABDUL
MUTTALIB entrusted the responsibility of bringing up, the PROPHET(S.A.) to ZUBAIR.
But, since it was intended (by the interested parties) to allocate this honor to ABU TAALIB,
the name of ZUBAIR had to be taken out and so, the toss was made among only two sons.
Then another fabrication was made that the PROPHET(S.A.) was brought up jointly
The originator of these two myths, could not see that firstly, ZUBAIR was a rich man
and ABU TAALIB a poor person. Why was it felt at all necessary to accommodate a child used
to rich environment, in a poor home, and that too in a joint way. And then it was said that
after ZUBAIR's death the PROPHET(S.A.) was looked after by ABU TAALIB.
It has been logically brought out, that the PROPHET(S.A.) was about 20 years, when
HALF-UL-FUZOOL was held, and ZUBAIR expired only thereafter. By that time the
PROPHET(S.A.) had already taken up his independent trade. What is then the sense in the
assertion of ABU TAALIB's Guardianship.
Let us advance a little further the logical examination (DARAYAT) and ponder over
the narrations (RIVAYAT).
The fact of the matter is, that ABDUL MUTTALIB entrusted the Guardianship of his
grand-son to ZUBAIR at the time of his death. ABU TAALIB had already seen during his life,
the generosity of ZUBAIR and his helping attitude towards the poor. He was sure that
ZUBAIR was fully capable of bearing the burden of the Guardianship. Moreover ZUBAIR
cherished extraordinary love for his orphan nephew. He often kept him in his arms, and lulled
him to sleep. As reported in AL-ASSABA, he used to say that this MOHAMMAD(S.A.) is a
souvenir of my brother ABDULLAH, while he swayed the little MOHAMMAD(S.A.) in his
arms. He prayed that he (MOHAMMAD-S.A.) may live a comfortable and noble life. (ALASSABA
P-308 Vo1.2).
One of the sons of ZUBAIR was named ABDULLAH who was young at the advent of
ISLAM. Whenever he used to visit the PROPHET(S.A.) he gave him a seat beside him and
treated him with great kindness and said "He is my brother and son of my mother (i.e.
grandmother). His father treated me very well: (AL-ASAABA Page 308 Vol. 2)".
The PROPHET(S.A.) named one of his sons TAHIR after the name of a son of
ZUBAIR (SHARAH IBNE ABI AL-HADEED). 'ZUBAIR had four daughters. All of them
embraced ISLAM. The PROPHET(S.A.) had lived with them in his childhood at young age.
He respected them a lot. In short, ZUBAIR commanded a good position, in his family due to
his virtues and he was loved by the entire family.
But the SHIATES, so cleverly substituted ABU TAALIB for ZUBAIR in this regard,
that even a Mature Historian like AKBAR SHAH KHAN and Experienced Critic like
MAULANA. SHIBLI, were duped. AKBAR SHAH KHAN, accepts ZUBAIR as the Chief of
HAASHIMI family after the death of ABDUL MUTTALIB. He also gives the credit of revival
of HALF-UL-FUZOOL to him. But he entrusts the Guardianship of the PROPHET(S.A.), to
ABU. TAALIB. Similarly Maulana SHIBLI writes that since ABDULLAH and ABU
TAALIB were real brothers, the Guardianship of the PROPHET(S.A,) was entrusted to ABU
TAALIB, At another place, this ALLAMA SHIBLI declares, IBNE QUTAIBA as a famous
and authentic writer, and states that the Scholars of HADITH take him as trust-worthy. (ALFAROOQ
P-6). But it is not understood, how did the statement of IBNE QUTAIBA escaped
him and SYED SULEMAN NADVI, while compiling SEERAT-UN-NABI, that ABDUL
MUNAF (The same thing has been stated by IBNE HAZM in JAMHARA-TUL-ANSAB).
They omitted one proved fact and wrongly reported a hear- say. Although while
describing HARBE FUJJAR he writes that ZUBAIR was the leader of AALE HAASHIM.
And the PROPHET(S.A.) was in the same line. He also mentions in connection with HALFUL-
FUZOOL that the proposal was routed out by ZUBAIR who was an uncle of the
PROPHET(S.A.) and the leader of the family.
The same way the phrase 'SHAIBE ABI TAALIB' is current among the people.
MAULANA SHIBLI continues writing it without ascertaining it. In fact, it was a pass in the
mountain hereditary with BANU HAASHIM. Since the entire BANU HAASHIM took refuge
here, when they were rendered out-cast by the idolaters of WIACCA, during the time of the
chief, ABU TAALIB. This pass became renowned as SHAIBE-ABI-TAALIB (or was made
so). It is a pity that a scholar like SHIBLI could not dispel such misunderstanding. However
after a long time, SYED SULA.IMAN NADVI rectified the position, on the margin of
SEERAT-UN-NABI. AKBAR SHAH KHAN also mentions it, in his history, by the name
There is a statement in SEERAT-UT-TAYYABA that ABU TAALIB, suffered from
such a monetary constraint, that they (his family members) were never fully fed, whether thay
ate together or individually, but when they took their meals with the PROPHET(S.A.) they
were all well fed. A number of such instances have been narrated in connection with the
Guardianship of ABU TAALIB. Although such incidents do not prove the Guardianship at all.
May be he (PROPHET-S A.) paid visits to the family of ABU TAALIB, being an uncle, as is
customary with children, and he might have been detained for meals. Had the
PROPHET(S.A.) lived with ABU TAALIB, permanently, he would have taken his meals with
them, in which case, they should not have suffered starvation, and this story would not have
been there. This very story proves that he did not live with ABU TAALIB. That is why, when
he visited them and took his meals with them, they were all fed well. In these stories attempt
has been made to elevate the position of ABU TAALIB under the pretense of the miracle of
the PROPHET(S.A.). And those who followed and adopted these stories as such, did not try
to understand that the chief of the clan was ZUBAIR. History is replete with the tales of his
generosity and patronage of the poor. He caresses his orphan nephew, tosses him on his hands
happily and lulls him to sleep. How could he leave such a lovely nephew to starve in the house
of ABU TAALIB, and that too in violation of the wish of his father, that he left him while
Now let us proceed ahead and look into the history in some depth. When the
PROPHET(S.A.) was persecuted by the QURAISH of MACCA for spreading his religion, we
do not find anywhere in the history any assistance advanced by ABU TAALIB or his sons, to
the PROPHET(S.A.). If we find anyone beside him, he is either HADRAT ABU BAKAR
SIDDIQ (Rd) or some years after, HADRAT HAMZA (Rd), when ABU JAHAL misbehaves
with the PROPHET(S.A.) and scolds him. On advancing a little further we find that when,
after the death of ZUBAIR the PROPHET(S.A.) intended to have a family and proposed for
UMME HAANI, ABU TAALIB, the affectionate uncle refused it and wedded her to
When the PROPHET(S.A.) complained of it to his uncle, the reply given by this
affectionate uncle, is available in the pages of history, as follows:-
"Nephew with these people we have been having relations for long. The noble meet
with nobles. But you are a pauper". (TAARIKH TABRI, AL-ASABA, TABQAT-IBNESAAD).
He despite his poverty claims to be noble and relegates the nephew to ignobility. How
could such an ignoble person bring up the PROPHET(S.A.) when he did not bring-up any of
his sons himself and left them to be fed by others.
From this one incident it can be imagined that all the stories of ABU TAALIB's
Guardianship are just false and fabricated. This very noble Son-in-Law of ABU TAALIB,
continued defaming the PROPHET(S.A.) and faced him, in all the battles fought by him. And
ultimately he fled towards NAJRAN on the surrender of MACCA and died an idolater
The historical material that has been produced by HAKIM FAIZ AALAM brings out
some facts clearly.
1. ABU TAALIB, was a pauper. He did not have any means of livelihood. He was unable
to under-take trade journeys being lame, His family never had enough to eat. He never
helped the PROPHET(S.A.) in any moment of distress. (That is, bodily help, keeping
his assistance limited to lip service). He taunted the PROPHET(S.A.) of poverty. He
declared him ingoble in comparison to HUBAIRA his son-in-law, who always
remained an enemy of the PROPHET(S.A.).
2. After ABDUL MUTTALIB, ZUBAIR was appointed the Chief of BANU HAASHIM.
He was very brave, rich and generous. He very much loved his nephew, the
PROPHET(S.A.). The PROPHET(S.A.) had been with him on various places. He lived
till the PROPHET(S.A.) became adult. That is, when he became twenty years old and
commenced his trade independently.
Whatever the late HAKIM has detailed, and whatever he has said about the condition
of ZUBAIR and ABU TAALIB, we do not deny it at all. But it has not been said specifically
in any of the authentic traditions, that ZUABIR, brought up the PROPHET(S.A.). Qualities
are one thing and acceptance or refusal of an event, the other. As for the proposition that in
the presence of a rich person, how could a pauper be entrusted with the Guardianship of an
orphan, we see and read that many a time, the rich are of no avail, and the poor prove to be
serviceable. If ZUBAIR was that noble did he look after HAMZA and ABBAS, who were
rendered orphans on the death of ABDUL MUTTALIB, and the question of their
Guardianship was also there along with that of the PROPHET(S.A.), as HAMZA was only six
months older than the PROPHET(S.A.) and ABBAS only one and a half years.
When we study the history today to reach a decision in this connection, we do not find
any where in history or Genealogical record the person who brought up ABBAS. However, in
the case of HAMZA, ALLAMA IBNE HAZM writes in JAMHARAT-UL-ANSAAB, that he
(HAMZA) was brought up by his maternal grand-mother, who was also the maternal grandmother
of the PROPHET(S.A.).
This proves that the rich ZUBAIR and ABU LAHAB did not look after their real
brothers. And those who could not look after their real brothers, how could they look after a
nephew. Show of love and affection in certain emotional moments is different from a regular
Guardianship over ten to twelve years.
Consequently a new concept is coming up now; that none brought up the
PROPHET(S.A). Then how the PROPHET(S.A.) lived all these ten to twelve years, of his
SHAH BALEEGHUDDIN, claims, in this connection that since the father of the
PROPHET(S.A.) was a big tradesman and a very rich person, he bequeathed him so much that
sufficed him (the PROPHET-S.A.) to live comfortably all this time. But this is also subject to
various objections.
1. ABDULLAH left behind a house and some goats, which, according to history, the
PROPHET(S.A.) did receive. ABDULLAH did not leave any big property behind him.
He was not a millionare like VALIKA or BAAWANI of his time.
2. Even if such big fortune was bequeathed by him (ABDULLAH) how could in such
young age one (the PROPHET-S.A.) know the way to preserve and spend it.
Moreover the custom during the Pre-Islamic days contradicts this concept. The
interpreter QURTUBI has described the law of inheritance while mentioning the
occasion of revelation of a verse of QURAN. He writes:
When HADRAT AOS BIN SABIT ANSARI died he left back one wife named
UMME KAHHA and three daughters. The cousins of HADRAT AOS, for whom he had left
his will, namely SUWAID and ORFAJA usurped the entire property, and did not give anything
to the nieces, because the basic principle was ":
'In the PRE-ISLAMIC days, the Arabs did not give any inheritance either to women or
children, even if they were sons'.
They advanced the following logic in support of this principle :-
'No inheritance can be given to any one except those who could ride a horse and fight,
and injure some one with their lances, battle with swords, and capture booty'.
UMME KAHHA approached the PROPHET(S.A.) and stated the entire case, The
PROPHET(S.A.) called them both, and enquired about the matter. They said, his son neither
rides a horse nor can bear a burden, nor can face and vanquish an enemy.
The PROPHET(S.A.) said, abstain from capturing the property, till some instruction is
revealed by ALLAH. The following verses were revealed on it :-
"Whatever heritage is left by parents and relatives, it contains a share for males and
female whether it is big or small, a share has been determined for each one of them".
SEOTI records this event in LEBAABUN NUQOOL Fl ASBABUN NUZOOL from
SUDDI, with the authority of IBNE JAREER:
"The people in the PRE-ISLAMIC period did not allow any heritage either to a
daughter or a weak son. Only the one who could fight, among the sons of a deceased, could
inherit his property" (LEBAABUN NUQOOL MA-A JALALAIN MISRY P.69),
This tradition also details that the name of the deceased was ABDUR REHMAN, who
was a brother of HISAAN (Rd) BIN SABIT. ABUSH SHAIKH and IBNE HIBAAN have
mentioned in KITAB-UL-FARAIZ, with reference to TAFSEER IBNE ABBAS :-
The people during PRE-ISLAMIC days, did not allow any inheritance either to
daughters or minor sons", (LEBAABUN NUQOOL MA-A JALALAIN MISRY P.68).
Again it has been stated that AOS BIN SABIT on his death left two daughters and a
minor son. The cousin of AOS named KHALID and URFAJA captured the inherited property.
From these references one thing is proved, that if ABDULLAH left any property, it
must have been captured by one who could fight. Under these circumstances the
PROPHET(S.A.) was deprived of his inheritance for being minor. ABU TAALIB could not
get it for being lame and HAMZA and ABBAS for being children. Thus this property must
have been captured either by ABU LAHAB or ZUBAIR BIN ABDUL MUTTALIB.
From the story of AOS this has also been brought out that normally Arabs did not take
possession of houses otherwise UMME KAHHA would have presented the question of her
lodging also. So, the house left by ABDULLAH was restored to the PROPHET(S.A.).
To prove that none brought up the PROPHET(S.A.), and he bore no obligation to
anyone, AL-QURAN says:
"Did ALLAH not find you orphan, and provided you with a settlement" (AZHA-6,7).
In this verse ALLAH has mentioned of only a refuge not breeding. The house of
ZUBAIR could as nicely be a refuge for the PROPHET(S.A.) as the house of ABU TAALIB
or his father's house. But the style of AL-QURAN indicates that this abode was given by
ALLAH and was not owned by anyone else.
The Interpreter QURTUBI has quoted on this occasion a statement of JAFAR BIN
MOHAMMAD. He was enquired as to why ALLAH made the PROPEHT(S.A.) an orphan,
both from father's and mother's side. He replied, "So that none in his creation could have an
obligation on the PROPHET(S.A.) (QURTUBI P-7186 Vol. 8).
When ALLAH did not like to burden the PROPHET(S.A.) with the obligation of his
parents, how could He keep him under the obligation of his Uncles. With these words JAFAR
BIN MOHAMMAD accepted that there was no favor of his grand-father ABU TAALIB on
the PROPHET(S.A.).
As for the view that the PROPHET(S.A.) was brought up by ZUBAIR luxuriously, or
his father left him as much money, AL-QURAN contradicts this also and says:-
"And ALLAH found you needy and made you rich". (WAWA JADAKA AA-ILAN
The Interpreter QURTUBI elaborates it. That is, the PROPHET(S.A,) was poor and
had no sustenance, and ALLAH made him rich through HADRAT KHADIJA(Rd). In Arabic
'AAL"YAEEL"EILA' is used when one is involved in poverty. AAHIHAH BIN ALJALAH
has said. "No, poor knows when he will become rich and no rich knows when he will be
poor".(QURTUBI P-7189 Vol. 8).
AL-QURAN testifies that a time had been when the PROPHET(S.A.) had narrow
means and he starved. This continued till the PROPHET(S.A.) started trade with the
merchandise of HADRAT KHADIJA(Rd). As if, after the death of ABDUL MUTTALIB the
PROPHET(S.A.) suffered poverty and a rich man like ZUBAIR did not assist him. Nor did the
PROPHET(S.A.) had enough of inheritance to live comfortably. Either he inherited no money
or it was usurped by his rich uncles. In consequence only two alternatives were left.
1. The PROPHET(S.A.) was brought up and reared by ABU TAALIB. This has been
proved false, above.
2. The PROPHET(S.A.) did not like to take any body's obligation and produced his own
means of livelihood. But what were these means. So we find in SAHEEH BUKHAR!,
KITABUL IJARA a tradition from HADRAT ABU HURAIRA(Rd), that the
PROPHET(S.A.) said :-
"There has been no PROPHET(A.S) who did not graze the cattle. The Companion
asked him, if he also did so. The PROPHET(S.A.) replied 'Yes' I used to pasture the herds of
the people of MACCA for QARAREET (i.e. coins)".
This tradition follows that the PROPHET(S.A.) used to graze the cattle of the people
of MACCA on payment, and lived on it. But those who labor under the supposed stories
regarding ABU TAALIB have said by way of meeting the tradition, that by QARAREET is
meant place not coins. However BUKHARI has accommodated this tradition under
recompense, which refutes this false assertion. Secondly, the PROPHET(S.A.) is not saying of
his own herd, but those of the residents of MACCA. Even now if someone says that ABU
TAALIB reared him, I would say 'Yes' but he fed himself by forcing the PROPHET(S.A.) to
graze the herd of the people of MACCA. In view of this tradition some people have said that
the PROPHET(S.A.) not only lived himself on grazing the goats but also fed the family of
ABU TAALIB. This way ABU TAALIB will be indebted to the PROPHET(S.A.) not the
PROPHET(S.A.) to him. And this is what we are aiming at. This is also supported by the
event that a day after the birth of HADRAT ALI(Rd), the PROPHET(S.A.) told his uncle
ABBAS(Rd), "Uncle. you know that my uncle ABU TAALIB is a poor man, why we should
not adopt one of his sons each". ABBAS(Rd) agreed and adopted JAFAR(Rd) and the
PROPHET(S.A.) adopted ALI(Rd). That was the time when the PROPHET(S.A.) had been
married to KHADIJA(Rd) and his wife was supporting him. Under the circumstances he could
not have done any better, with his uncle. Before marriage, the PROPHET(S.A.) had taken
upon himself the responsibility of ABU TAALIB and his family. Now he found this way of
fulfilling it. The other two sons, TAALIB and AQEEL were now grown up. So this left on
ABU.TAALIB, only the burden of his wife. All other responsibilities were taken off him.

Our Historians, should not now search in the history for a Guardian of the
PROPHET(S.A.), but should look for the supporter of ABU TAALIB and his two sons. If
they do so, they will carry out a very notable research job.

Messages In This Thread

Who Raised the Exalted Messnger [AS]
abdalaziz ariff / indiana -- Saturday, 20 April 2019, 6:51 pm
Re: Who Raised the Exalted Messnger [AS]
Ali Syed Florida -- Sunday, 21 April 2019, 4:06 pm