Is there a contradiction between the ahad hadith that clarifies that the Messenger (peace be upon him) was bewitched, and the verse that says

Is there a contradiction between the ahad hadith that clarifies that the Messenger (peace be upon him) was bewitched, and the verse that says: ? And if he was bewitched, does that mean he stopped going to the mosque and conveying the message? Is the Messenger protected from the harm of people?

The Shaykh: We have addressed this issue many times, so I am trying to answer it briefly as much as possible.
We say: There is no contradiction between the hadith of the Messenger (peace be upon him) and the verse that says: ; because what the disbelievers who said: mean is different from what the hadith of Aisha means, namely that the Messenger (peace be upon him) was bewitched by a Jewish man. What the disbelievers who said to the believers: ; “You do not follow except a man who has been bewitched,” mean is that the magic they claimed affected him to the point that he did not realize the mixture in his speech and its disturbance, and the like of that which is not the nature of people of sound mind.
Therefore, some exegetes interpreted to mean a madman; meaning that the magic they claimed was in him affected him to the point that it made him a madman, unaware of his consciousness. This meaning that the unjust disbelievers attributed to the Messenger (peace be upon him) is not in the hadith of magic, not a little or a lot, which describes itThe questioner : as an ahad hadith. Even if this hadith were only hasan, there is no contradiction between it and the aforementioned verse, for the reason we mentioned earlier, a madman who does not realize what he says, and the hadith does not say this thing at all.
Everything in the hadith is that the Messenger (peace be upon him) was affected by magic in the sexual aspect. The Messenger (may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him) was strong in everything, even in his body. The story of his wrestling with “Rukanah” and defeating him is not strange to you. For that reason, it came in “Sahih al-Bukhari” that the Companions used to talk about the Messenger (peace be upon him) being given the strength of forty men. It is fully consistent with this strength that Allah granted him that he was able to take in and keep under his protection nine women or more sometimes, and he would visit all the women in one night. There is no shame in the religion, nor any defect in the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) at all in this. Even if the disbelievers among the Orientalists and the like of them from the Westernized Muslims make that an attack on the Messenger (peace be upon him). No, and the profound wisdom of the Messenger (peace be upon him) gathering this number of women is known to you or to many of you.
So this strength that the Messenger (peace be upon him) enjoyed seemed to anger the Jews, and it was their right; because this strength was a stone in their eyes, a thorn in their eyes. Therefore, they sent Lubayd the Jew to bewitch the Messenger (peace be upon him). So he became weak and that strength left him. He would come or try to come to his wives, and he would find that he could not do anything, not as usual. He would be made to think that he was coming to his wives and not coming to them. This is in the narration of “Sahih al-Bukhari,” and it is an explanatory narration that addresses the doubt that many writers of the present age cling to, who do not delve into studying the verse first, and then studying the hadith second. Therefore, the contradiction between the verse and the hadith appears, but there is no contradiction at all.
And what confirms that for you is the statement of thisThe questioner : person who boasts of what he reads of writings in the present age. He says at the end of his question: And the Messenger is protected from the harm of people.
This statement is wrong from the Islamic perspective. The Messenger is protected from the harm of people. This biography we read that he was wounded in the Battle of Uhud, and his front tooth was broken, and so on. And while he was praying, the saddle and the filth in it were placed on the back of the Messenger (peace be upon him) while he was praying in the Ka'bah. How can a Muslim say: that the Messenger (peace be upon him) is protected from the harm of people? That is because the matter was confused for them in His saying (Blessed and Exalted is He): .
So he understood from their harm. This is a wrong interpretation, and Islamic history and the history of the Prophetic hadith, all this and that, invalidates this interpretation. That is what we referred to earlier, that the Messenger was harmed with the greatest harm. Indeed, the history of the hadith—as I said—that the Messenger (peace be upon him) said: , and he said as a general response: .
So how can this speaker, following those writers, say that Allah said to the Messenger: , meaning: from their harm? How can they say this?! This is wrong.
So what is the intended meaning of ? He protects you from them so that they do not succeed in killing you and destroying you, thereby preventing you from conveying the message, , and be reassured; no one will absolutely be able to reach you to kill you and prevent you from conveying the message of your Lord.
This is the meaning of the verse. When they misunderstood this verse, a new problem arose with them; they misunderstood the hadith of magic; that it contains harm from that wicked Jew to this pure human soul. So they said: This Messenger is protected; the Messenger is protected from anyone preventing him from conveying the message. As for harm, he is not protected at all. And this—as we said—is contrary to the surah and contrary to the Prophetic hadith.
So the hadith of magic is on one side, and the verse and the like of it—also—from other verses are on another side. There is no contradiction between them and the authentic hadith. As for describingThe questioner : following—also—some contemporary writers of this hadith as an ahad hadith; this is a fitnah that the Mu'tazilah spread more than ten centuries ago. And they succeeded—unfortunately—in slipping it into the minds of some of the people of the Sunnah who claim that they fight the Mu'tazilah in their ideas and beliefs, and they do not feel or realize that they are with them in many of their beliefs. Among that is the philosophy of the ahad hadith and the mutawatir hadith.
This is a foreign philosophy in Islam. There is only a hadith that is established or not established. After the hadith is established, it must be acted upon, whether it is in creed, or in rulings, or in morals, or in news, or in anything else. As long as it is established that the Messenger said it, submission is obligatory.
What issue is this hadith for? What category of these categories? Is it in creed? No, it has to do with reality and history.
Do you see the illness of the Messenger (peace be upon him)? Did he get sick or not? Do we want a mutawatir hadith? There is no mutawatir hadith. Every person gets sick, and the Messenger is human and gets sick. The Messenger was bewitched; this has to do with reality. Was he bewitched or not? We look at the authenticity of the hadith. We said: He was bewitched. If it is not authentic, we do not say: He was bewitched; because it is not permissible to attribute to the Messenger what has not been established. So how, and this hadith is not... and it may not mean...
These two mu'awwidhat (protective chapters) are Meccan, and they have no evidence at all for that. While there is an authentic hadith that they were revealed on the occasion of the bewitching of the Messenger (may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him).
So the claim that this is an ahad hadith for the purpose of weakening and diminishing it; this is not something a Muslim should look at; because it is a Mu'tazili philosophy.
And secondly: This hadith is not contradictory to the verse, for what we mentioned that the verse means , meaning a madman; that is: he does not realize what he says. As for the Messenger, it is contrary to what came in the speech ofThe questioner : In the end, the meaning of their claim is that he was unable to go out to the mosque or sit with the Muslims. That is not the case. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) remained as he had been before. We also know from the correct history of Islam and the correct Prophetic biography that when the Messenger (peace be upon him) fell ill with the illness of his death, he appointed Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer. Throughout his life, he only appointed Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer at the end of his life. In all other instances, he continued to lead the prayer himself, always and without exception, unless he was traveling from the city to pray elsewhere. But while he was present, he did not appoint anyone to pray on his behalf except in the illness of his death.
So in this incident, he was the one praying. If he had been delayed for even one day, that would have been reported. How could this be, when this illness lasted for six months with the Messenger (peace be upon him)? If it had been as the wrongdoers of old claimed, and they were disbelievers, and as the wrongdoers of today claim, and they are Muslims but ignorant, thinking that the hadith means what the verse means, if that had been the case, history would have recorded it. But history did not record any of that.
So understand the hadith within the limits of its time first, and within the limits of the history of the life of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) from its beginning to its end, where he was never delayed in performing all his obligations, contrary to the claimThe questioner: And if he had been bewitched, this would mean that he stopped going to the mosque and conveying the message. No.
To this day, it is known among the common people that so-and-so got married, and on the first night, the second night, the first month, the second month, and so on, what do they say about him? They say he is "bound." Look, does this bound man not go to his work? Does he not stop his activities? No, he is just like you, perfectly fine! But from that side, the man is incapable for some reason. Now, does this mean that his mind changed and his thinking changed? Absolutely not.
... likewise, except that from that side he has no strength; this is either an illness or sorcery, one of the two. If it is an illness, the doctors will discover it. If it is sorcery, the doctors can never discover it; because this is a spiritual illness and doctors treat physical illnesses. From this, it is necessary for Muslims to practice Prophetic medicine, which includes reciting the two chapters of protection (al-Mu'awwidhatan), and reciting some of the specific, short invocations: in the morning and evening, and so on. Then no poison or sorcery will harm him on that day.
And this incident confirms the opposite of what the Mu'tazilah and their followers in the present age say: that sorcery has no effect. How can these people say this when the Messenger commands us to seek protection, and that whoever does so will not be affected by poison or sorcery? So sorcery is linked in terms of effect to poison. Does anyone say that poison has no effect? No; because its effect is physical, so it is observed and tangible. These materialists believe in all matter. But this sorcery that is not seen; Satan is not seen; do these people believe in Satan? If they believe in Islam, they believe in Satan, they believe in the jinn. And if they do not believe, they do not believe in anything called Satan, or more broadly, anything called jinn. They did not believe in that either. Consequently, they will not believe in any of the effects of this creation, which is the jinn or Satan. So what is our duty? We want to believe in everything that came in the Book and in the authentic Sunnah.
This is the summary of the answer to this question, and I hope I have not been too long.
...

The questioner: ... Is it Meccan or Medinan?

The Shaykh: Did you memorize your lesson?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: Do you want me to tell you that it is Meccan?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: After I told you it is Medinan, do you want me to tell you it is Meccan?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: Glory be to Allah! ... about yourself, you must go back to the tafsir (exegesis) now. You confuse others with the lessons. I said: there is a hadith in "Musnad al-Imam Ahmad" that says - and it is an authentic hadith - that the two chapters of protection (al-Mu'awwidhatan) were revealed ... in this incident. And other people say: they are Meccan, and they have no evidence. ... The one who tells you - for example - that the Meccan or Medinan verses are such and such, none of that is from the Qur'an. For the sake of - look at the books of the Salaf - for the sake of this prohibition, they said: every addition to the mushaf is an innovation. Their view was very far-reaching and deep. Every addition to the Qur'an is an innovation; the parts (ajza'), the tenths (a'ashar), the groups (ahzab), and so on, all of this is an innovation ... a time will come for people when it is thought that all of this ... is from Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). No, there are things that are based on ijtihad (independent legal reasoning). Even some of the endowments (waqf) in the time of the endowment - if the expression is correct - "stop, do not stop" and so on, they said: these are things based on ijtihad, not revealed from the sky. I say: some ... and some of these marks ... are contrary to the Sunnah, not just contrary to ijtihad; but contrary to the Sunnah. For example, in some mushafs: "No"; meaning, continue, do not stop. Whereas the Sunnah is to stop at the beginning of the verse. So someone will argue with me: "This mushaf is written: 'No'." My brother, who wrote "No"? It did not come down with the Qur'an!! The Qur'an came down verse by verse; its meaning is that the Lord of the Worlds spoke thus with the verse, Jibril (Gabriel) came down thus with the verse, Muhammad (peace be upon him) received the verse from Jibril thus, verse by verse, sentence by sentence. It is not permissible to connect a verse with a verse contrary to the Sunnah; that is: to worship in that manner. But if one, for example, is in a hurry and wants to read for memorization, there is no harm for the time being. But to believe that this is the correct way is a mistake.